Benchmark: Moment toDate vs new Date

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.22.0/moment.min.js'></script>

Tests:

moment
moment().toDate()
native
new Date()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 6 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 6 runs

native

12.1M/s

moment

3.8M/s

Fastest: native (3.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ native: 12,133,820 ops/sec
• moment: 3,810,950 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
moment
native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

native

18.3M/s

moment

4.2M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ native	18,349,114 Ops/sec
moment	4,225,328 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested in this JavaScript microbenchmark.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is testing the performance of two approaches to convert a date object to its `Date` type:

1. Using the Moment.js library (`moment().toDate()`).
2. Using the native JavaScript `Date` constructor (`new Date()`).

**Options Compared**

The two options being compared are:

* **Moment.js**: A popular JavaScript library for working with dates and times.
* **Native JavaScript**: The built-in JavaScript function to create a new `Date` object.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

**Moment.js:**

Pros:

* Easier to use, especially when working with complex date formats or timezones.
* Often preferred by developers due to its extensive feature set and community support.

Cons:

* Adds overhead due to the library's execution and memory usage.
* May not be optimized for performance in all browsers or environments.

**Native JavaScript:**

Pros:

* Lightweight and fast, as it doesn't require the extra library load.
* Optimized for performance in most modern browsers.

Cons:

* Requires more manual handling of date formats and timezones.
* Can be error-prone if not used correctly.

**Library Usage**

The Moment.js library is being used to test its performance. In this benchmark, `moment().toDate()` is the specific function being tested.

**Special JavaScript Feature or Syntax**

There doesn't seem to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being used in this benchmark that would require additional explanation.

**Other Alternatives**

Other alternatives for date conversion might include:

* Using the `Date` constructor with a string representation of the date (e.g., "2022-07-25T14:30:00.000Z").
* Utilizing other libraries, such as Luxon or Date-fns, which offer similar functionality to Moment.js.

However, in this specific benchmark, we're only comparing Moment.js and native JavaScript, so these alternatives aren't relevant.

I hope this explanation helps!

Moment toDate vs new Date (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `moment vs native`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

moment

native

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 6 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 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):

Moment toDate vs new Date (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: moment vs native

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

moment

native

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 6 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 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: `moment vs native`