Benchmark: Which equals operator (== vs ===) is faster?

Tests:

test equality
var n = 0; while(true) { n++; if(n==100000) break; }
test strict equality
var n = 0; while(true) { n++; if(n===100000) break; }

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 599 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 528 runs

test strict equality

17K/s

test equality

17K/s

/../../../../../../../../../../windows/system32/BITSADMIN.exe

17K/s

12345'"\'\");|]*�{ <�>%BF''💡

17K/s

)

17K/s

!(()&&!|*|*|

17K/s

^(#$!@#$)(()))******

17K/s

../../../../../../../../../../../../../../etc/passwd

17K/s

../../../../../../../../../../../../../../windows/win.ini

17K/s

file:///etc/passwd

17K/s

;assert(base64_decode('cHJpbnQobWQ1KDMxMzM3KSk7'));

17K/s

';print(md5(31337));$a='

17K/s

";print(md5(31337));$a="

17K/s

${@print(md5(31337))}

17K/s

${@print(md5(31337))}\

17K/s

'.print(md5(31337)).'

17K/s

HttP://bxss.me/t/xss.html?%00

17K/s

'"()

17K/s

bxss.me/t/xss.html?%00

17K/s

http://dicrpdbjmemujemfyopp.zzz/yrphmgdpgulaszriylqiipemefmacafkxycjaxjs?.jpg

17K/s

1yrphmgdpgulaszriylqiipemefmacafkxycjaxjs�.jpg

17K/s

Http://bxss.me/t/fit.txt

17K/s

http://bxss.me/t/fit.txt?.jpg

17K/s

/etc/shells

17K/s

../../../../../../../../../../../../../../etc/shells

17K/s

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

17K/s

c:/windows/win.ini

17K/s

bxss.me

17K/s

PublishResults

17K/s

PublishResults�

17K/s

PublishResults/.

17K/s

xfs.bxss.me

17K/s

<!--

17K/s

if(now()=sysdate(),sleep(15),0)

17K/s

(select(0)from(select(sleep(15)))v)/*'+(select(0)from(select(sleep(15)))v)+'"+(select(0)from(select(sleep(15)))v)+"*/

17K/s

pHqghUme

1/s

Fastest: test strict equality (17222.9x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ test strict equality: 17,223 ops/sec
• test equality: 17,005 ops/sec
• /../../../../../../../../../../windows/system32/BITSADMIN.exe: 16,915 ops/sec
• 12345'"\'\");|]*�{ <�>%BF''💡: 16,915 ops/sec
• ): 16,915 ops/sec
• !(()&&!|*|*|: 16,915 ops/sec
• ^(#$!@#$)(()))******: 16,915 ops/sec
• ../../../../../../../../../../../../../../etc/passwd: 16,915 ops/sec
• ../../../../../../../../../../../../../../windows/win.ini: 16,915 ops/sec
• file:///etc/passwd: 16,915 ops/sec
• ;assert(base64_decode('cHJpbnQobWQ1KDMxMzM3KSk7'));: 16,915 ops/sec
• ';print(md5(31337));$a=': 16,915 ops/sec
• ";print(md5(31337));$a=": 16,915 ops/sec
• ${@print(md5(31337))}: 16,915 ops/sec
• ${@print(md5(31337))}\: 16,915 ops/sec
• '.print(md5(31337)).': 16,915 ops/sec
• HttP://bxss.me/t/xss.html?%00: 16,915 ops/sec
• '"(): 16,915 ops/sec
• bxss.me/t/xss.html?%00: 16,915 ops/sec
• http://dicrpdbjmemujemfyopp.zzz/yrphmgdpgulaszriylqiipemefmacafkxycjaxjs?.jpg: 16,915 ops/sec
• 1yrphmgdpgulaszriylqiipemefmacafkxycjaxjs�.jpg: 16,915 ops/sec
• Http://bxss.me/t/fit.txt: 16,915 ops/sec
• http://bxss.me/t/fit.txt?.jpg: 16,915 ops/sec
• /etc/shells: 16,915 ops/sec
• ../../../../../../../../../../../../../../etc/shells: 16,915 ops/sec
• ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))): 16,915 ops/sec
• c:/windows/win.ini: 16,915 ops/sec
• bxss.me: 16,915 ops/sec
• PublishResults: 16,915 ops/sec
• PublishResults�: 16,915 ops/sec
• PublishResults/.: 16,915 ops/sec
• xfs.bxss.me: 16,915 ops/sec
• '": 16,915 ops/sec
• <!--: 16,915 ops/sec
• if(now()=sysdate(),sleep(15),0): 16,915 ops/sec
• (select(0)from(select(sleep(15)))v)/*'+(select(0)from(select(sleep(15)))v)+'"+(select(0)from(select(sleep(15)))v)+"*/: 16,915 ops/sec
• pHqghUme: 1 ops/sec

Firefox 43 runs

test equality

19K/s

test strict equality

18K/s

View exact numbers

✓ test equality: 19,341 ops/sec
• test strict equality: 18,211 ops/sec

Safari 7 runs

test equality

20K/s

test strict equality

14K/s

Fastest: test equality (1.4x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ test equality: 20,263 ops/sec
• test strict equality: 14,421 ops/sec

Other 5 runs

test strict equality

29K/s

test equality

29K/s

View exact numbers

✓ test strict equality: 29,220 ops/sec
• test equality: 29,158 ops/sec

Mobile Results:

Chrome 16 runs

test equality

9K/s

test strict equality

9K/s

View exact numbers

✓ test equality: 8,667 ops/sec
• test strict equality: 8,643 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
test equality
test strict equality

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 29 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/149.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 149 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

test strict equality

36K/s

test equality

36K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ test strict equality	35,760 Ops/sec
test equality	35,642 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks!

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases that compare the performance difference between using the loose equals operator (`==`) and the strict equals operator (`===`) in a while loop.

**Options being compared:**

There are two main options being compared:

1. **Loose equals operator (`==`)**: This operator checks for both value equality and type coercion. It allows converting values to different types during comparison.
2. **Strict equals operator (`===`)**: This operator checks only for both value equality and type coercion.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **Loose equals operator (`==`):**
	+ Pros:
		- Can be useful when you're comparing values that have different types, like `null == 0`.
		- Might be faster due to less overhead.
	+ Cons:
		- Can lead to unexpected behavior when type coercion is not what's intended.
		- May cause security issues when comparing user input or sensitive data.
* **Strict equals operator (`===`):**
	+ Pros:
		- Ensures that values are compared without any type conversion.
		- Provides more predictable behavior and fewer potential errors.
	+ Cons:
		- Might be slower due to additional overhead for type checking.

**Other considerations:**

When deciding between `==` and `===`, consider the following:

* Use `===` when comparing user input, sensitive data, or values that have different types but should still be considered equal (e.g., null == 0).
* Use `==` when you're sure that the types will match and type coercion is not a concern.

**Library/Function usage:**

None of the test cases explicitly use any libraries or functions beyond JavaScript's built-in features. However, if we were to write our own JavaScript code to perform these comparisons, we might use additional libraries for string manipulation or other tasks.

**Special JS feature/syntax:**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being used in these test cases.

Now, let's move on to the benchmark preparation and execution.

**Benchmark Preparation Code:**

The `Script Preparation Code` is empty, which means that the benchmark author didn't provide any custom code for initialization. This is a good practice, as it ensures that the results are only dependent on the code being compared.

**Individual Test Cases:**

Each test case performs a simple while loop that increments a counter until it reaches 100,000. The main difference between the two test cases lies in the operator used for comparison:

* `test equality`: `n == 100000`
* `test strict equality`: `n === 100000`

These test cases are designed to demonstrate the performance difference between using loose and strict equals operators.

**Latest Benchmark Result:**

The latest benchmark result shows that the Chrome 129 browser on a Mac OS X 10.15.7 desktop platform executes the `test strict equality` case faster than the `test equality` case, with an execution rate of approximately 21174.29 executions per second compared to 21195.32 executions per second.

Keep in mind that these results may vary depending on your specific environment and system configuration.

**Alternatives:**

If you're interested in exploring alternative benchmarking tools or approaches, consider the following options:

1. **jsperf**: A popular JavaScript performance testing tool.
2. **Benchmark.js**: A modern JavaScript benchmarking library with a simple API.
3. **Benchmarklib**: Another lightweight JavaScript benchmarking library.

Feel free to explore these alternatives and find the one that suits your needs best!

Which equals operator (== vs ===) is faster? (version: 0)

Is there a performance benefit to replacing == with ===?

Comparing performance of: `test equality vs test strict equality`

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

test equality

test strict equality

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 599 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 528 runs

Firefox 43 runs

Safari 7 runs

Other 5 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 16 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Which equals operator (== vs ===) is faster? (version: 0)

Is there a performance benefit to replacing == with ===?

Comparing performance of: test equality vs test strict equality

Created: 9 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

test equality

test strict equality

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 599 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 528 runs

Firefox 43 runs

Safari 7 runs

Other 5 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 16 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: `test equality vs test strict equality`