Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject = {
  description: 'Creates a deep copy of source, which should be an object or an array.',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  jayson: {
    stringify: 'JSON.stringify() method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string....',
    parse: 'JSON.parse() method parses a JSON string...'
  }
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
Native structuredClone
myCopy = structuredClone(MyObject);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 1,807 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 1,373 runs

Lodash cloneDeep

1.5M/s

Native structuredClone

571K/s

Fastest: Lodash cloneDeep (2.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Lodash cloneDeep: 1,480,620 ops/sec
• Native structuredClone: 571,378 ops/sec

Firefox 230 runs

Lodash cloneDeep

1.4M/s

Native structuredClone

778K/s

Fastest: Lodash cloneDeep (1.8x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Lodash cloneDeep: 1,390,834 ops/sec
• Native structuredClone: 778,199 ops/sec

Safari 36 runs

Lodash cloneDeep

2.2M/s

Native structuredClone

814K/s

Fastest: Lodash cloneDeep (2.7x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Lodash cloneDeep: 2,209,037 ops/sec
• Native structuredClone: 813,505 ops/sec

Other 21 runs

Lodash cloneDeep

911K/s

Native structuredClone

369K/s

Fastest: Lodash cloneDeep (2.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Lodash cloneDeep: 911,323 ops/sec
• Native structuredClone: 369,131 ops/sec

Mobile Results:

Chrome 92 runs

Lodash cloneDeep

733K/s

Native structuredClone

209K/s

Fastest: Lodash cloneDeep (3.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Lodash cloneDeep: 732,714 ops/sec
• Native structuredClone: 208,940 ops/sec

Safari 47 runs

Lodash cloneDeep

2.2M/s

Native structuredClone

811K/s

Fastest: Lodash cloneDeep (2.7x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Lodash cloneDeep: 2,226,308 ops/sec
• Native structuredClone: 810,738 ops/sec

Firefox 8 runs

Lodash cloneDeep

792K/s

Native structuredClone

278K/s

Fastest: Lodash cloneDeep (2.8x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Lodash cloneDeep: 792,131 ops/sec
• Native structuredClone: 278,296 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
Lodash cloneDeep
Native structuredClone

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 149 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Lodash cloneDeep

1.4M/s

Native structuredClone

512K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Lodash cloneDeep	1,355,426 Ops/sec
Native structuredClone	511,539 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 benchmark and its components.

**Benchmark Definition**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark that compares two approaches for creating deep copies of objects: `Lodash cloneDeep` and `structuredClone`. The benchmark is designed to test the performance of these two methods on a specific set of input data.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**: This method is part of the popular Lodash library, which provides a utility function for creating deep copies of objects.
2. **structuredClone**: This is a native JavaScript method introduced in ECMAScript 2020 (ES2020) that creates a deep copy of an object.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* **Lodash cloneDeep**:
	+ Pros: widely adopted, well-tested, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: adds an external dependency (the Lodash library), which may not be desirable for all projects. Also, the deep cloning process can be complex and error-prone if not implemented correctly.
* **structuredClone**:
	+ Pros: native to JavaScript, no external dependencies, and more efficient than `cloneDeep` in some cases.
	+ Cons: only supported in modern browsers that implement ES2020 or later. Additionally, the method requires careful handling of circular references and other edge cases.

**Library (Lodash)**

The Lodash library is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, object transformation, and more. In this benchmark, `cloneDeep` is used to create deep copies of objects.

**Special JS Feature (ECMAScript 2020)**

The `structuredClone` method is a new feature introduced in ECMAScript 2020, which allows creating deep copies of objects using the `structuredClone()` function. This method is designed to be more efficient and easier to use than traditional cloning methods like `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`.

**Other Considerations**

When working with complex object graphs, other factors such as memory allocation, garbage collection, and caching can also impact performance. In this benchmark, only the execution speed of each approach is being measured.

**Alternatives**

If you need to create deep copies of objects in a JavaScript environment without access to ES2020 or later, alternative approaches include:

1. Using `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj))`, which creates a shallow copy of the object.
2. Implementing a custom cloning function using recursion or iteration.
3. Using a library like Lodash (in addition to the built-in `structuredClone` method).

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs, and the choice ultimately depends on your specific use case and performance requirements.

Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone (version: 0)

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/structuredClone

Comparing performance of: `Lodash cloneDeep vs Native structuredClone`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Native structuredClone

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 1,807 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 1,373 runs

Firefox 230 runs

Safari 36 runs

Other 21 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 92 runs

Safari 47 runs

Firefox 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):

Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone (version: 0)

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/structuredClone

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Native structuredClone

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Native structuredClone

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 1,807 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 1,373 runs

Firefox 230 runs

Safari 36 runs

Other 21 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 92 runs

Safari 47 runs

Firefox 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: `Lodash cloneDeep vs Native structuredClone`