Benchmark: .endsWith vs includes

Script Preparation code:

var string = 'some string that ends with burrito';
var stringToCheck = 'burrito';

var result = null;

Tests:

endsWith()
result = stringToCheck.endsWith(string);
includes()
result = stringToCheck.includes(string);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
endsWith()
includes()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/138.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 138 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
endsWith()	6358581.0 Ops/sec
includes()	11179015.0 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 its test cases.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two string manipulation methods: `endsWith()` and `includes()`. These methods are used to check if a string ends with or includes a specific substring, respectively.

**Options compared**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`endsWith()`**: This method checks if the end of a string matches a specified value. It's used to verify that the last character of a string is equal to a given value.
2. **`includes()`**: This method checks if a string contains a specified value, without requiring the value to be at the end of the string.

**Pros and Cons**

* `endsWith()`
	+ Pros: More efficient when checking if a string ends with a specific substring, as it only requires accessing a single character.
	+ Cons: Less flexible than `includes()` and may not work correctly for strings that don't end with the specified value.
* `includes()`
	+ Pros: More flexible than `endsWith()`, as it can be used to check if any part of a string matches a specified value. However, this comes at the cost of potentially slower performance due to the need to scan the entire string.
	+ Cons: May require more memory access and computations compared to `endsWith()`.

**Library/ Framework considerations**

There is no explicit library or framework mentioned in the benchmark setup. Both `endsWith()` and `includes()` are built-in methods in JavaScript, which means they don't rely on external libraries or frameworks.

**Special JS features/syntax (none)**

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. It's a straightforward test of two basic string manipulation methods.

**Other alternatives**

If you wanted to write a similar benchmark, you could consider using other string manipulation methods, such as:

* `indexOf()`: Similar to `includes()`, but returns the index of the first occurrence instead of a boolean value.
* `lastIndexOf()`: Returns the index of the last occurrence of a specified value in a string.
* Regular expressions: Can be used for more complex string matching and manipulation tasks, but may require additional setup and configuration.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs in terms of performance, flexibility, and complexity.

Related benchmarks:

.endsWith vs includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: endsWith() vs includes()

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

endsWith()

includes()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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