Benchmark: sanitize-html vs lodash

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/sanitize-html/1.27.5/sanitize-html.min.js" integrity="sha512-1WdDeZGPykoWawFKD3NGJfZM+4hq2+OxUF8ZJrrqFBNU3J+Q5Tgvn+XwHNt8HaVs1MRFFlAgtOgyJr6/mqN/xw==" crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>

Script Preparation code:

const escape = title => _.escape(_.unescape(title))

Tests:

lodash
console.log(escape("&ds;<")) console.log(escape("<속보>")) console.log(escape("<속보>")) console.log(escape("<marquee></marquee>")) console.log(escape("<marquee>속보</marquee>")) console.log(escape("<marquee><속보></marquee>")) console.log(escape("<속보>")) console.log(escape("<속보>"))
sanitize-html
console.log(sanitizeHtml("&ds;<")) console.log(sanitizeHtml("<속보>")) console.log(sanitizeHtml("<속보>")) console.log(sanitizeHtml("<marquee></marquee>")) console.log(sanitizeHtml("<marquee>속보</marquee>")) console.log(sanitizeHtml("<marquee><속보></marquee>")) console.log(sanitizeHtml("<속보>")) console.log(sanitizeHtml("<속보>"))

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
lodash
sanitize-html

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/142.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/142.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 142 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
lodash	25047.6 Ops/sec
sanitize-html	9461.9 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 definition and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two JavaScript functions: `escape` from the Lodash library and `sanitizeHtml` from the Sanitize HTML library.

**What's being compared?**

The test cases are designed to measure the performance of each function when escaping a specific set of HTML characters. The goal is to determine which function can process these characters more efficiently.

**Options compared:**

1. **Lodash escape function**: The `escape` function from Lodash is used to sanitize and escape HTML characters.
2. **Sanitize HTML library**: The `sanitizeHtml` function from the Sanitize HTML library is used to sanitize and escape HTML characters.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**Lodash Escape Function:**

Pros:

* Well-established and widely used library
* Provides a robust set of features for HTML escaping

Cons:

* May have additional overhead due to its feature-rich nature
* Can be slower than a dedicated HTML sanitizer

**Sanitize HTML Library:**

Pros:

* Optimized specifically for HTML sanitization, reducing overhead
* Designed to handle complex edge cases and HTML entities

Cons:

* Less widely used compared to Lodash
* May have fewer features and options

**Special considerations:**

1. The test uses `_.escape` and `_unescape` functions from Lodash, which can lead to additional overhead due to the need for escape and unescape operations.
2. The Sanitize HTML library uses a more efficient approach by directly sanitizing and escaping the input HTML.

**Other alternatives:**

If not using Lodash or the Sanitize HTML library, developers could consider other HTML sanitization libraries like DOMPurify or jshtml. These libraries are designed specifically for HTML sanitization and may offer better performance than a generic escape function from a library like Lodash.

Keep in mind that the choice of library ultimately depends on the specific use case and requirements of your project.

Related benchmarks:

sanitize-html vs lodash (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs sanitize-html

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

lodash

sanitize-html

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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