Benchmark: bignumber.js vs. big.js vs. decimal.js vs. Fraction.js (20220325)

bignumber.js vs. big.js vs. decimal.js vs. Fraction.js (20220325) (version: 0)

- https://github.com/iriscouch/bigdecimal.js/tree/v0.6.1 - https://github.com/MikeMcl/bignumber.js/tree/v9.0.2 - https://github.com/MikeMcl/big.js/tree/v6.1.1 - https://github.com/MikeMcl/decimal.js/tree/v10.3.1 - https://github.com/infusion/Fraction.js/tree/v4.2.0

Comparing performance of: Native vs Native + toFixed vs decimal.js vs big.js vs bignumber.js vs bigdecimal.js vs Fraction.js

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/bigdecimal@0.6.1/lib/bigdecimal.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/bignumber.js@9.0.2/bignumber.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/big.js@6.1.1/big.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/decimal.js@10.3.1/decimal.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/fraction.js@4.2.0/fraction.min.js"></script>

Tests:

Native
var a = 0.1; var b = 0.2; ((a + b) * b).toString();
Native + toFixed
var a = 0.1; var b = 0.2; ((a + b) * b).toFixed(9);
decimal.js
var a = new Decimal("0.1"); var b = new Decimal("0.2"); a.plus(b).times(b).toString();
big.js
var a = new Big("0.1"); var b = new Big("0.2"); a.plus(b).mul(b).toString();
bignumber.js
var a = new BigNumber("0.1"); var b = new BigNumber("0.2"); a.plus(b).multipliedBy(b).toString();
bigdecimal.js
var a = new BigDecimal("0.1"); var b = new BigDecimal("0.2"); a.add(b).multiply(b).toString();
Fraction.js
var a = new Fraction("0.1"); var b = new Fraction("0.2"); a.add(b).mul(b).toString();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Native
Native + toFixed
decimal.js
big.js
bignumber.js
bigdecimal.js
Fraction.js

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 136 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Native	47034332.0 Ops/sec
Native + toFixed	6878657.0 Ops/sec
decimal.js	874616.2 Ops/sec
big.js	1615871.0 Ops/sec
bignumber.js	858793.9 Ops/sec
bigdecimal.js	151665.7 Ops/sec
Fraction.js	1997568.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The benchmark measures the performance of six different libraries for handling decimal arithmetic in JavaScript:

1. `bignumber.js`
2. `big.js`
3. `decimal.js`
4. `Fraction.js`
5. `Big` (from the `big-integer` package, not mentioned in the provided JSON but assumed to be a typo)
6. `BigDecimal` (not mentioned in the provided JSON, but similar to `Big`, likely from the `big-integer` package)

The benchmark consists of six test cases, each performing a simple arithmetic operation on two decimal numbers: addition and multiplication.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of each library in three main options:

1. **Native**: Using native JavaScript methods for decimal arithmetic (e.g., `(a + b) * b`).
2. **Native + toFixed**: Using native JavaScript methods with the `toFixed()` method to limit the result to a fixed number of decimal places.
3. **Library-based**: Using each library's specific implementation for decimal arithmetic.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some general pros and cons of each approach:

* **Native**:
	+ Pros: Fastest execution time, likely optimized for performance.
	+ Cons: May not provide accurate results due to floating-point precision issues.
* **Native + toFixed**:
	+ Pros: Can provide more accurate results by limiting the number of decimal places.
	+ Cons: May introduce additional overhead and slower execution times.
* **Library-based**:
	+ Pros: Often provides more accurate and precise results, especially for larger numbers or complex arithmetic operations.
	+ Cons: May be slower than native methods due to the library's implementation.

**Library-Specific Considerations**

1. `decimal.js`: Provides a robust and accurate implementation of decimal arithmetic, but may introduce additional overhead compared to native methods.
2. `big.js`, `bignumber.js`: These libraries are designed specifically for handling large integers and decimals, but may not be as performant as native methods for smaller numbers or simple arithmetic operations.
3. `Fraction.js`: Provides a specialized implementation for rational numbers (fractions), which may not be suitable for all use cases.

**Conclusion**

The benchmark highlights the trade-offs between accuracy, performance, and overhead when using different libraries for decimal arithmetic in JavaScript. While native methods provide fast execution times, they may introduce precision issues due to floating-point limitations. Library-based implementations can provide more accurate results but may come at a cost of slower execution times. The choice of library ultimately depends on the specific requirements and constraints of the application.

Related benchmarks: