Benchmark: number to string: template literal vs toString vs string literal concat vs string constructor

Script Preparation code:

const i = 12345678

Tests:

toString
i.toString()
template literal
`${i}`
string literal concat
"" + i;
String()
String(i)

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 136 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 130 runs

template literal

129.8M/s

string literal concat

115.6M/s

toString

111.4M/s

String()

17.0M/s

Fastest: template literal (7.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ template literal: 129,812,960 ops/sec
• string literal concat: 115,623,984 ops/sec
• toString: 111,449,120 ops/sec
• String(): 17,032,948 ops/sec

Safari 6 runs

string literal concat

610.5M/s

toString

589.5M/s

template literal

574.4M/s

String()

25.9M/s

Fastest: string literal concat (23.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ string literal concat: 610,532,224 ops/sec
• toString: 589,514,368 ops/sec
• template literal: 574,362,368 ops/sec
• String(): 25,898,092 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
toString
template literal
string literal concat
String()

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) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/144.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 144 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

template literal

90.6M/s

string literal concat

73.5M/s

toString

67.7M/s

String()

63.8M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ template literal	90,569,592 Ops/sec
string literal concat	73,495,176 Ops/sec
toString	67,659,368 Ops/sec
String()	63,810,972 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 various components.

**Benchmark Definition**
The benchmark is focused on comparing four different approaches to convert an integer `i` to a string in JavaScript:

1. `toString()`
2. Template literal (``${i}``)
3. String literal concatenation (`"\" + i;`)
4. Using the `String()` constructor (`String(i)`)

**Options Compared**
The benchmark compares the execution performance of each approach, specifically focusing on the number of executions per second.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **`toString()`**: This is a built-in method that converts an object to a string. It's concise and easy to use, but may not be as performant as other methods.
2. **Template Literal (`${i}`)**: Template literals are a relatively new feature in JavaScript that allows you to embed expressions inside string literals. They can provide good performance when used with numeric values. However, they require support for modern browsers and may not work in older environments.
3. **String literal concatenation (`"\" + i;`)**: This method involves concatenating strings using the `+` operator. While it's straightforward to use, it can lead to slower execution times due to string creation overhead.
4. **Using the `String()` constructor (`String(i)`)**: This approach uses a dedicated function to convert an object to a string. It's concise but may not be as performant as other methods.

**Library and Special Features**
There are no libraries used in this benchmark, and no special JavaScript features or syntax are introduced (other than template literals, which is a relatively new feature).

**Other Considerations**

* The `Script Preparation Code` sets the value of `i` to 12345678 before running each test case. This ensures that each test case starts with the same input value.
* The `Html Preparation Code` is empty in this benchmark, suggesting that no additional setup or configuration is required for the tests.

**Alternatives**
If you're looking for alternative approaches to convert an integer to a string, you might consider using:

1. **Arrow functions**: `i => i.toString()`
2. **Regular expressions**: `i.toString().replace(/^./g, '')`

However, these alternatives are not included in this benchmark and may have different performance characteristics.

Overall, the benchmark provides a clear comparison of four common approaches to converting integers to strings in JavaScript, helping users understand which approach is most performant for their specific use cases.

number to string: template literal vs toString vs string literal concat vs string constructor (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `toString vs template literal vs string literal concat vs String()`

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

toString

template literal

string literal concat

String()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 136 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 130 runs

Safari 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):

number to string: template literal vs toString vs string literal concat vs string constructor (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toString vs template literal vs string literal concat vs String()

Created: 4 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

toString

template literal

string literal concat

String()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 136 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 130 runs

Safari 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: `toString vs template literal vs string literal concat vs String()`