Benchmark: Md5 hashing - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/spark-md5/3.0.2/spark-md5.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/crypto-js/4.1.1/crypto-js.min.js"></script>

Tests:

Spark
SparkMD5.hash('Hi there');
CryptoJS
CryptoJS.MD5('Hi there');

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 20 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 15 runs

Spark

988K/s

CryptoJS

502K/s

Fastest: Spark (2.0x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Spark: 988,263 ops/sec
• CryptoJS: 502,145 ops/sec

Firefox 5 runs

Spark

775K/s

CryptoJS

209K/s

Fastest: Spark (3.7x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Spark: 775,295 ops/sec
• CryptoJS: 209,337 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
Spark
CryptoJS

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:144.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/144.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 144 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Spark

763K/s

CryptoJS

242K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Spark	762,749 Ops/sec
CryptoJS	242,055 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

This benchmark tests the performance of two different JavaScript libraries for calculating MD5 hashes:

* **SparkMD5:** A lightweight library focused on efficient hashing algorithms.  
* **CryptoJS:** A more comprehensive library offering various cryptographic functions, including MD5 hashing.

The tests compare how many times each library can calculate the MD5 hash of the string "Hi there" per second.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **SparkMD5:**
    * **Pros:** Generally considered faster due to its minimal size and focus on a specific task.
    * **Cons:** Less versatile compared to CryptoJS, as it primarily handles hashing operations.
* **CryptoJS:**
    * **Pros:** Offers a wider range of cryptographic functions beyond just MD5 hashing.  Can be more suitable if you need other cryptographic tools in your project.
    * **Cons:** Can be slightly slower than SparkMD5 due to its larger size and additional features.

**Other Considerations:**

* **Library Overhead:** Both libraries have some overhead associated with their initialization and function calls. This can affect the measured performance, especially for smaller test strings.
* **JavaScript Engine Optimization:** Different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8 in Chrome, SpiderMonkey in Firefox) may optimize these libraries differently, leading to varying performance results across browsers.
* **Test String Length:**  The performance difference between SparkMD5 and CryptoJS might be more pronounced with longer strings.

**Alternatives:**

Besides the mentioned libraries, you could explore other JavaScript hashing solutions:

* **Native `crypto` API (Node.js):** If you're working in a Node.js environment, the built-in `crypto` module provides high-performance cryptographic functions, including MD5. 
* **WebAssembly:**  For even greater performance gains, consider implementing your own MD5 hashing algorithm in WebAssembly and integrating it into your JavaScript code.

Remember that the best choice depends on your specific project requirements, performance needs, and the desired level of cryptographic security.

Md5 hashing (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Spark vs CryptoJS`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Spark

CryptoJS

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 20 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 15 runs

Firefox 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):

Md5 hashing (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Spark vs CryptoJS

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Spark

CryptoJS

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 20 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 15 runs

Firefox 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gemma2:9b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Spark vs CryptoJS`