Benchmark: string-interpolation-vs-concatenation

Script Preparation code:

var luckyNumber = Math.round(Math.random() * 100);

Tests:

string-interpolation
`your lucky number for today is: ${luckyNumber}`
string-concatenation
'your lucky number for today is: ' + luckyNumber

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 121 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 90 runs

string-interpolation

23.1M/s

string-concatenation

21.0M/s

View exact numbers

✓ string-interpolation: 23,050,488 ops/sec
• string-concatenation: 20,964,840 ops/sec

Firefox 24 runs

string-concatenation

1589.5M/s

string-interpolation

351.3M/s

Fastest: string-concatenation (4.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ string-concatenation: 1,589,540,352 ops/sec
• string-interpolation: 351,303,680 ops/sec

Mobile Results:

Chrome 7 runs

string-interpolation

20.9M/s

string-concatenation

16.8M/s

Fastest: string-interpolation (1.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ string-interpolation: 20,889,124 ops/sec
• string-concatenation: 16,778,860 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
string-interpolation
string-concatenation

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) 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

string-interpolation

106.6M/s

string-concatenation

101.0M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ string-interpolation	106,583,856 Ops/sec
string-concatenation	101,049,672 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark test case hosted on MeasureThat.net. The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches to string interpolation: template literals (using backticks) and concatenation.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared in this benchmark:

1. **Template Literals**: Using backticks (`) to insert variables into strings.
2. **String Concatenation**: Using the `+` operator to concatenate strings.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Template Literals (Backticks)**:
	+ Pros: More concise, readable, and maintainable code; reduces typos and errors; can be used with variable interpolation.
	+ Cons: May require JavaScript engine support (not all browsers or environments may have it enabled by default).
* **String Concatenation**:
	+ Pros: Widely supported across different browsers and environments; does not rely on JavaScript engine-specific features.
	+ Cons: Less readable, more prone to typos and errors; can lead to performance issues due to the creation of intermediate strings.

**Library/Dependency**

None is explicitly mentioned in the provided JSON. However, it's worth noting that template literals are a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6), which was widely adopted by modern browsers. Older browsers may not support this feature out-of-the-box.

**Special JavaScript Feature/Syntax**

The benchmark utilizes a feature called **Template Literals**, specifically backticks (`) and variable interpolation `${variableName}`.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need to compare performance with other string interpolation methods, you could consider adding test cases for:

* **String Formatting Functions**: Using built-in functions like `format()` or `printf()`, which might be available in certain browsers or environments.
* **Regular Expressions**: Using regex patterns to replace placeholders with values, which can provide more control over formatting but may come at a performance cost.

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs and may not provide the same level of conciseness and readability as template literals.

string-interpolation-vs-concatenation (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: `string-interpolation vs string-concatenation`

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

string-interpolation

string-concatenation

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 121 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 90 runs

Firefox 24 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 7 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

string-interpolation-vs-concatenation (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: string-interpolation vs string-concatenation

Created: 9 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

string-interpolation

string-concatenation

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 121 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 90 runs

Firefox 24 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 7 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: `string-interpolation vs string-concatenation`