Benchmark: String() vs .toString() vs template string

Tests:

String()
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String(i)); }
.toString()
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(i.toString()); }
template string
let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(`${i}`); }

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 158 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 127 runs

template string

2.5M/s

.toString()

1.5M/s

String()

170K/s

Fastest: template string (14.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ template string: 2,482,536 ops/sec
• .toString(): 1,516,738 ops/sec
• String(): 170,246 ops/sec

Firefox 24 runs

.toString()

3.6M/s

String()

3.0M/s

template string

2.2M/s

Fastest: .toString() (1.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ .toString(): 3,573,263 ops/sec
• String(): 2,956,701 ops/sec
• template string: 2,176,562 ops/sec

Safari 7 runs

.toString()

2.2M/s

template string

2.1M/s

String()

187K/s

Fastest: .toString() (11.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ .toString(): 2,169,481 ops/sec
• template string: 2,119,883 ops/sec
• String(): 187,374 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
String()
.toString()
template string

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 15 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:152.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/152.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 152 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

.toString()

4.4M/s

template string

3.7M/s

String()

3.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ .toString()	4,407,829 Ops/sec
template string	3,727,530 Ops/sec
String()	3,136,214 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this benchmark.

The test case uses JavaScript, which is a dynamically-typed language. The benchmark is comparing three different ways to convert numbers to strings:

1. **String()**: This method converts the number to a string using the built-in `String()` function.
2. **.toString()**: This method converts the number to a string using the `toString()` method, which is a part of the object prototype chain for numeric values (e.g., `Number` objects).
3. **Template String**: This method uses template literals (`${}`) to convert the number to a string.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

**String()**

Pros: Simple and straightforward.
Cons: May involve additional overhead due to the dynamic type system, which can lead to slower performance compared to other methods.

**.toString()**

Pros: Efficient, as it uses an optimized implementation provided by JavaScript engine.
Cons: Requires explicit conversion to a `Number` object, which might be unnecessary in some cases.

**Template String**

Pros: Convenient and expressive, allowing for more flexibility in formatting strings.
Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to the parsing process involved in template literals.

In terms of performance, the `.toString()` method is likely to be the fastest, as it leverages an optimized implementation provided by the JavaScript engine. However, the difference between `String()` and `.toString()` might be negligible unless you're dealing with extremely large numbers or performance-critical code.

Template strings offer a nice trade-off between convenience and performance. While they may introduce some overhead, their concise syntax can make them easier to read and maintain, especially for simple string formatting tasks.

To give you a better idea of the results in this specific benchmark, let's look at the execution rates:

* Template String: 2557035.5 executions per second
* .toString(): 1558067.875 executions per second
* String(): 141062.375 executions per second

As expected, the template string outperforms both `.toString()` and `String()`, likely due to its optimized parsing process.

If you're interested in exploring other alternatives, here are a few:

1. **`Number.toString()`**: Similar to `.toString()`, but uses the `toString()` method of the `Number` class instead.
2. **`+` operator**: Using the unary `+` operator to convert numbers to strings can be another viable option. However, it may have different performance characteristics depending on the JavaScript engine and environment.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not offer significant advantages over the original three methods, but they can provide additional options for experimentation or specific use cases.

String() vs .toString() vs template string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `String() vs .toString() vs template string`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

String()

.toString()

template string

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 158 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 127 runs

Firefox 24 runs

Safari 7 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

String() vs .toString() vs template string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String() vs .toString() vs template string

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

String()

.toString()

template string

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 158 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 127 runs

Firefox 24 runs

Safari 7 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: `String() vs .toString() vs template string`