Benchmark: .endsWith vs includes betterment

Script Preparation code:

var string = 'car';
var stringToCheck = 'ICEcar';

var result = null;

Tests:

.endsWith
result = stringToCheck.endsWith(string);
.includes
result = stringToCheck.includes(string);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
.endsWith
.includes

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/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
.endsWith	7661551.0 Ops/sec
.includes	7549450.5 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 analyze what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two string methods: `endsWith` and `includes`. The test creates two strings, `string` and `stringToCheck`, where `stringToCheck` contains the suffix `'ICEcar'` appended to `string`.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark tests two options:

1. **`.endsWith()`**: This method checks if a string ends with another string.
2. **`.includes()`**: This method checks if a string contains another string.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* `.endsWith()`: This method is more efficient than `.includes()` because it only requires a single pass through the characters in the `stringToCheck` string, whereas `.includes()` potentially requires multiple passes. However, `.endsWith()` may not be as flexible since it can't check for prefix matches or exact matches.
* `.includes()`:

Pros: More flexible and forgiving than `.endsWith()`, allowing for partial matches and exact matches.

Cons: Slower due to the single character scan in case of partial matches.

**Library and Special JS Features**

The benchmark doesn't use any external libraries. However, it does utilize special JavaScript features:
* **Template Literals**: The code uses template literals (`var string = 'car';`) for string creation.
* **ES6+ Methods**: Both `.endsWith()` and `.includes()` are ES6+ methods, which are supported in modern browsers.

**Other Alternatives**

If not using the specified options, other alternatives could include:
* Using a regular expression to match the suffix or prefix (e.g., `new RegExp('Icecar$').test(string)` for `.endsWith()`) or `new RegExp('Icecar').test(string)` for `.includes()`).
* Implementing custom string matching functions.

Keep in mind that using regular expressions can be slower and may require more system resources than the built-in methods. Custom implementations might not be optimized for performance and could lead to inconsistent results.

Overall, the benchmark provides a simple yet informative comparison between two commonly used string methods, helping users understand the relative performance of `.endsWith()` and `.includes()`.

Related benchmarks:

.endsWith vs includes betterment (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .endsWith vs .includes

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

.endsWith

.includes

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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