Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
jQuery hasClass vs jQuery is
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing performance of:
jQuery hasClass vs jQuery is
Created:
4 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.2.1/jquery.min.js"></script> <div id="el" class="test"></div>
Tests:
jQuery hasClass
$("#el").hasClass("test");
jQuery is
$("#el").is(".test");
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
jQuery hasClass
jQuery is
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:122.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/122.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 122 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=505035" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
jQuery hasClass
2.8M/s
jQuery is
2.3M/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
jQuery hasClass
2,816,198 Ops/sec
jQuery is
2,324,136 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided JSON and explain what's being tested in each test case. **Benchmark Definition** The benchmark measures the performance difference between two jQuery methods: `hasClass` and `is`. These methods are used to check if an element has a specific class or if it matches a certain selector, respectively. **Options Compared** Two options are compared: 1. **jQuery hasClass**: This method checks if an element has a specific class by using the `className` property of the DOM element. 2. **jQuery is**: This method checks if an element matches a certain selector by using the `matchesSelector()` function. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * `hasClass`: This approach is generally faster because it uses the optimized `className` property access, which is often cached in JavaScript engines. However, it may not be as accurate for cases where the class name has leading or trailing whitespace. * `is`: This approach uses the `matchesSelector()` function, which can be slower than accessing the `className` property directly. However, it provides more flexibility and accuracy, especially when dealing with complex selectors. **Additional Considerations** Both methods have additional overhead due to the following: * jQuery's DOM manipulation and event handling * The JavaScript engine's execution of the method calls * Any potential caching or optimization in the browser **Library Used** The benchmark uses jQuery library version 3.2.1, which is an older version but still widely supported. No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in these test cases. **Other Alternatives** If you wanted to measure the performance of other jQuery methods, such as `toggleClass()` or `contents()`, you could add additional benchmarking scripts with their respective code and HTML preparation. For non-JQuery approaches, you could use native JavaScript methods like `Element.classList.contains()` or `Element.matches()`, depending on your specific requirements. Keep in mind that measuring performance differences between small snippets of code is usually not representative of real-world usage scenarios. However, this benchmark can provide valuable insights into the performance characteristics of these specific jQuery methods in different browsers and execution environments.
Related benchmarks
jQuery hasClass vs jQuery data
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?