Benchmark: Date.parse vs new Date from string

Tests:

new Date
new Date('Next-Day Delivery <br> Arrives tomorrow, Wednesday Oct. 27');
Date.parse
Date.parse('Next-Day Delivery <br> Arrives tomorrow, Wednesday Oct. 27');

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 22 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 16 runs

Date.parse

2.8M/s

new Date

2.7M/s

View exact numbers

✓ Date.parse: 2,846,619 ops/sec
• new Date: 2,674,556 ops/sec

Firefox 6 runs

Date.parse

24.5M/s

new Date

15.5M/s

Fastest: Date.parse (1.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Date.parse: 24,544,732 ops/sec
• new Date: 15,481,838 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
new Date
Date.parse

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:148.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/148.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 148 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Date.parse

22.5M/s

new Date

15.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Date.parse	22,485,676 Ops/sec
new Date	15,110,719 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 JSON and explain what's being tested in the benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares the performance of two different ways to parse dates in JavaScript:

1. `new Date()` with a string argument
2. `Date.parse()` with a string argument

In other words, the test cases are checking how fast each method can process a specific date string.

**Options compared:**

There are two options being compared:

1. **`new Date()`**: This method creates a new `Date` object by parsing the provided string. The string is expected to be in a format that can be parsed by the browser's internal date parser.
2. **`Date.parse()`**: This method returns the number of milliseconds since January 1, 1970, 00:00:00 UTC for the specified date string.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* `new Date()`: Pros:
	+ More intuitive and easier to use, especially when working with human-readable dates.
	+ Less error-prone, as the browser's internal parser can handle many common date formats.
* Cons:
	+ May be slower than `Date.parse()` due to the overhead of creating a new `Date` object.
* `Date.parse()`: Pros:
	+ Faster, as it only requires parsing the date string and returns a numeric value.
	+ More flexible, as it can handle more complex date formats and edge cases.
* Cons:
	+ Less intuitive and less error-prone than `new Date()`, especially for developers without experience with date parsing.

**Library usage:**

There is no explicit library being used in this benchmark. However, the `Date` object itself is a built-in JavaScript object that provides methods for working with dates.

**Special JS features or syntax:**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax. It only relies on standard JavaScript features and objects.

**Other alternatives:**

If you're looking to measure performance in JavaScript, here are some alternative approaches:

1. **V8 Perf**: A benchmarking tool specifically designed for measuring the performance of JavaScript engines.
2. **Benchmark.js**: A popular benchmarking library for JavaScript that provides a simple way to write and run benchmarks.
3. **JSPerf**: A benchmarking tool specifically designed for measuring the performance of JavaScript code.

In summary, this benchmark is testing the performance difference between `new Date()` and `Date.parse()` in JavaScript, which can be useful for developers working with dates in their applications.

Date.parse vs new Date from string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `new Date vs Date.parse`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

new Date

Date.parse

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 22 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 16 runs

Firefox 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Date.parse vs new Date from string (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: new Date vs Date.parse

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

new Date

Date.parse

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 22 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 16 runs

Firefox 6 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: `new Date vs Date.parse`