Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
toString vs string template literal vs String()
(version: 1)
Comparing performance of:
toString vs Template literal vs String()
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Registered User
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
toString
for (let i = 0; i <= 10000; i++) { const number = i; const stringFromNumber = number.toString(); }
Template literal
for (let i = 0; i <= 10000; i++) { const number = i; const stringFromNumber = `${number}`; }
String()
for (let i = 0; i <= 10000; i++) { const number = i; const stringFromNumber = String(number); }
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (3)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
toString
Template literal
String()
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
No previous run results
This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one
to run it!
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
I'd be happy to explain the provided benchmark and its results. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark is designed to test three different approaches for converting an integer number to a string: 1. `toString()`: The built-in `toString()` method, which converts a value to a string using its internal implementation. 2. String template literal (`"${number}"`): A feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), which allows embedding expressions inside double quotes to create a string. 3. `String(number)`: The `String()` function, which is an alias for the `toString()` method. **Options Comparison** The three approaches have different pros and cons: * **`toString()`**: This approach uses the built-in implementation of string conversion. It's likely to be the fastest, as it's implemented in native code. However, its performance may vary depending on the specific use case (e.g., padding, formatting). * **String template literal (`"${number}"`)**: This approach is more expressive and flexible than the other two. It allows for easy concatenation and formatting of strings. However, it might be slower than `toString()` due to the additional overhead of parsing the template literal. * **`String(number)`**: This approach is essentially identical to `toString()`, as both are aliases for the same method. It's likely to have similar performance characteristics. **Other Considerations** When choosing an approach, consider the following factors: * Performance: If speed is critical, `toString()` might be the best choice. * Expressiveness: If you need to create complex strings with formatting and concatenation, the string template literal might be a better option. * Consistency: If you're working with legacy code or older browsers, using `String(number)` or `toString()` might be more compatible. **Library and Special JS Features** There are no libraries used in this benchmark. However, the use of string template literals is a special JavaScript feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). If you're targeting older browsers or environments without ES6 support, you may need to use one of the other approaches. **Benchmark Preparation Code and Results** The provided benchmark preparation code consists of three identical loops that create an integer array and convert each number to a string using one of the three approaches. The results show the executions per second for each approach on a Chrome 111 browser running on Windows.
Related benchmarks:
String() vs template literal
string vs template vs toString
number to string: template literal vs toString vs string literal concat vs string constructor
String() primitive vs template literal interpolation for representing a number as a string
number to string: template literal vs toString vs string literal concat vs string constructor(2)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?