Benchmark: jQuery vs Vanilla JavaScript

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.3.1/jquery.js'></script>
<div id="test"></div>

Tests:

jquery
$("div").append($("ul")).append($("li"))
vanilla js
let div = document.getElementById('test'); let ul = document.createElement('ul'); ul.className = 'test-list'; let li = document.createElement('li'); li.className = 'test-item'; ul.append(li); div.append(ul);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jquery
vanilla js

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:137.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/137.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 137 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jquery	334955.7 Ops/sec
vanilla js	1764.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and analyzed.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches: jQuery (a JavaScript library) and Vanilla JavaScript (the native JavaScript syntax).

**Options compared:**

Two options are compared:

1. **jQuery**: A popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and event handling.
2. **Vanilla JavaScript**: The native JavaScript syntax, which is used without any external libraries.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**jQuery:**

Pros:

* Easier to use for complex DOM manipulations
* Provides a consistent API across browsers
* Can improve performance in some cases due to its optimized code

Cons:

* Adds extra overhead due to the library's size and complexity
* May not perform as well as Vanilla JavaScript in simple cases
* Can lead to slower startup times due to the loading of the library

**Vanilla JavaScript:**

Pros:

* Lightweight and compact, with less overhead
* Can be more efficient for simple DOM manipulations
* Faster startup times due to no additional libraries

Cons:

* Requires more code and manual DOM manipulation
* May not be as consistent across browsers
* Can lead to slower performance in complex cases

**Library used:**

In this benchmark, jQuery is loaded from a CDN (Content Delivery Network) to ensure consistency across different environments.

**Special JavaScript features or syntax:**

None are mentioned specifically in the provided code or benchmark definition. However, it's worth noting that some browsers may have specific extensions or flags enabled that could affect performance, such as Just-In-Time (JIT) compilation or Web Workers.

**Other alternatives:**

Other JavaScript libraries and frameworks could be used instead of jQuery, depending on the specific requirements of the project. Some popular alternatives include:

* Lodash
* React
* Angular
* Vue.js

Additionally, other approaches to DOM manipulation and event handling exist, such as:

* MooTools (another popular library)
* Prototype (a precursor to jQuery)
* Custom implementations using Web Workers or WebAssembly

It's essential to consider factors like performance, maintenance ease, and feature set when choosing a JavaScript library or framework for your project.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery vs Vanilla JavaScript (version: 0)

jQuery vs Vanilla JavaScript

Comparing performance of: jquery vs vanilla js

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jquery

vanilla js

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):