Benchmark: .includes() vs .test() vs .match() vs .indexOf()

Script Preparation code:

var url='https://www.google.com/matchthis/other/args'

Tests:

text.includes()
url.includes('matchthis')
regex.test()
/matchthis/.test(url)
string.match()
url.match(/matchthis/)
string.indexOf()
url.indexOf('matchthis') >= 0

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 288 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 244 runs

text.includes()

30.5M/s

string.indexOf()

30.4M/s

regex.test()

15.4M/s

string.match()

12.4M/s

Fastest: text.includes() (2.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ text.includes(): 30,452,560 ops/sec
• string.indexOf(): 30,382,360 ops/sec
• regex.test(): 15,396,231 ops/sec
• string.match(): 12,373,802 ops/sec

Firefox 25 runs

string.indexOf()

1094.0M/s

text.includes()

1071.0M/s

regex.test()

25.3M/s

string.match()

15.8M/s

Fastest: string.indexOf() (69.3x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ string.indexOf(): 1,093,978,752 ops/sec
• text.includes(): 1,071,030,592 ops/sec
• regex.test(): 25,311,298 ops/sec
• string.match(): 15,790,091 ops/sec

Safari 6 runs

string.indexOf()

415.3M/s

regex.test()

386.1M/s

string.match()

125.4M/s

text.includes()

25.7M/s

Fastest: string.indexOf() (16.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ string.indexOf(): 415,250,304 ops/sec
• regex.test(): 386,130,560 ops/sec
• string.match(): 125,371,240 ops/sec
• text.includes(): 25,697,058 ops/sec

Other 5 runs

text.includes()

20.2M/s

string.indexOf()

19.0M/s

regex.test()

8.2M/s

string.match()

6.4M/s

Fastest: text.includes() (3.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ text.includes(): 20,206,092 ops/sec
• string.indexOf(): 19,015,372 ops/sec
• regex.test(): 8,194,358 ops/sec
• string.match(): 6,402,257 ops/sec

Mobile Results:

Chrome 8 runs

text.includes()

13.5M/s

string.indexOf()

13.1M/s

regex.test()

8.4M/s

string.match()

6.1M/s

Fastest: text.includes() (2.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ text.includes(): 13,457,314 ops/sec
• string.indexOf(): 13,055,995 ops/sec
• regex.test(): 8,369,469 ops/sec
• string.match(): 6,051,253 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
text.includes()
regex.test()
string.match()
string.indexOf()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 149 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

string.indexOf()

200.7M/s

text.includes()

186.5M/s

regex.test()

25.6M/s

string.match()

18.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ string.indexOf()	200,737,072 Ops/sec
text.includes()	186,534,704 Ops/sec
regex.test()	25,641,002 Ops/sec
string.match()	18,122,838 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares four different intra-string matching styles: `.includes()`, `.test()`, `.match()`, and `.indexOf()`.

**Options Compared**

* `text.includes()`: This is a simple string method that checks if a specified value (in this case, "matchthis") exists in the original URL.
* `regex.test(url)`: This uses regular expressions to search for the pattern "matchthis" in the URL. The `test()` method returns `true` if the pattern is found anywhere in the string.
* `string.match(/matchthis/)`: Similar to `regex.test()`, this uses a regular expression to find the pattern "matchthis" in the URL. However, it returns an array of all matches instead of just a boolean result.
* `string.indexOf('matchthis') >= 0`: This is another simple string method that checks if the substring "matchthis" exists in the original URL.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`.includes()`**: Pros - Simple, easy to understand, and widely supported. Cons - Can be slow for large strings or complex patterns.
* **`regex.test(url)`**: Pros - Powerful and flexible regular expression engine. Cons - Can be slow, especially for complex patterns or very long strings. Requires knowledge of regular expressions.
* **`string.match(/matchthis/)`**: Pros - Returns an array of all matches, can be useful for more complex searches. Cons - Returns multiple values, which might not be what you want. Can be slower than `.includes()` or `.indexOf()`.
* **`string.indexOf('matchthis') >= 0`**: Pros - Simple and fast, but may not work as expected if "matchthis" is part of a larger string. Cons - Not suitable for complex patterns.

**Library and Purpose**

None mentioned in the provided benchmark definition.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

* None explicitly mentioned. However, `regex.test(url)` uses regular expressions, which are a powerful but also complex feature of JavaScript.

**Other Considerations**

The benchmark is focused on comparing these four string matching styles, but it's worth noting that:

* In modern JavaScript engines (ECMAScript 2015+), `.includes()` and `.indexOf()` are often optimized to be more efficient than `string.match()`.
* For complex patterns or large strings, using a dedicated regular expression engine like `regex.test()` might be the best choice.
* For simple searches where speed is not a concern, `.includes()` or `.indexOf()` might be sufficient.

**Alternatives**

Other alternatives for string matching in JavaScript include:

* Using a library like `lodash` which provides various string methods and utilities.
* Implementing custom string matching logic using bitwise operations or other techniques.
* Using a different data structure, such as an array of substrings, to improve search performance.

Keep in mind that the choice of method depends on the specific requirements of your use case.

.includes() vs .test() vs .match() vs .indexOf() (version: 0)

Compare different intra-string matching styles

Comparing performance of: `text.includes() vs regex.test() vs string.match() vs string.indexOf()`

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

text.includes()

regex.test()

string.match()

string.indexOf()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 288 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 244 runs

Firefox 25 runs

Safari 6 runs

Other 5 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 8 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

.includes() vs .test() vs .match() vs .indexOf() (version: 0)

Compare different intra-string matching styles

Comparing performance of: text.includes() vs regex.test() vs string.match() vs string.indexOf()

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

text.includes()

regex.test()

string.match()

string.indexOf()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 288 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 244 runs

Firefox 25 runs

Safari 6 runs

Other 5 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 8 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `text.includes() vs regex.test() vs string.match() vs string.indexOf()`