Benchmark: remeda vs lodash vs ramda

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.28.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/remeda@0.0.35/dist/commonjs/index.min.js"></script>

Tests:

pipe
const input = [ { one: 100} ] console.log(R, _, Remeda, Ramda)
pipe 2
const input = [ { one: 100} ] console.log(input)

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 85 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 71 runs

pipe 2

357K/s

pipe

0/s

View exact numbers

✓ pipe 2: 357,435 ops/sec
• pipe: 0 ops/sec

Firefox 14 runs

pipe 2

256K/s

pipe

0/s

View exact numbers

✓ pipe 2: 255,588 ops/sec
• pipe: 0 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
pipe
pipe 2

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 143 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

pipe 2

642K/s

pipe

0/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ pipe 2	642,377 Ops/sec
pipe	0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll break down the explanation into smaller sections to make it easier to understand.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net, which allows users to compare the performance of different libraries: Remeda, Lodash, and Ramda. The benchmark is designed to test the efficiency of these libraries in performing specific operations.

**Options Compared**

The three options being compared are:

1. **Remeda**: A library that provides functional programming utilities, including pipes.
2. **Lodash**: A popular utility-belt library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as array manipulation, string manipulation, and more.
3. **Ramda**: A functional programming library that provides a series of higher-order functions to manipulate and transform data.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

Here's a brief overview of the pros and cons of each approach:

1. **Remeda**: Pros:
	* Specifically designed for functional programming, which can lead to more efficient code.
	* Pipes are optimized for performance.
	* Easy to learn and use.
2. **Lodash**: Pros:
	* Extremely popular and widely adopted, with a large community of users and contributors.
	* Provides a vast array of useful functions.
	* Well-documented and easy to learn.
3. **Ramda**: Pros:
	* Designed for functional programming, similar to Remeda.
	* Higher-order functions provide a lot of flexibility.
	* Small and lightweight.

Cons:

1. **Remeda**:
	* Smaller community compared to Lodash.
	* May not have as many built-in functions as Lodash.
2. **Lodash**:
	* Can be overwhelming with the sheer number of options.
	* Some users may find it harder to learn and use due to its extensive feature set.
3. **Ramda**:
	* Smaller community compared to Lodash.
	* May require more time to learn and adapt to its API.

**Library Usage**

In the provided benchmark, Lodash is used in two test cases:

1. `console.log(input)`: This simple console log statement tests the performance of Lodash's basic functionality without any additional operations.
2. `const input = [ { one: 100} ]\r\n\r\nconsole.log(R, _, Remeda, Ramda)`: This test case uses Lodash's pipe function (`_`) to chain multiple functions together and log the final result.

Ramda is used in both test cases:

1. `console.log(R, _, Remeda, Ramda)`: Similar to Lodash, this test case logs the Ramda version of each library.
2. `const input = [ { one: 100} ]\r\n\r\nconsole.log(input)`: This test case is similar to the Lodash test case.

Remeda is used in both test cases:

1. `const input = [ { one: 100} ]\r\n\r\nconsole.log(R, _, Remeda, Ramda)`
2. `const input = [ { one: 100} ]`: This test case only uses the pipe function from Remeda.

**Special JS Features or Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance of different libraries.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to these libraries, here are a few options:

1. **Underscore.js**: Another popular utility-belt library that provides similar functionality to Lodash.
2. **Simpleslice.js**: A lightweight library that provides functional programming utilities, similar to Remeda and Ramda.
3. **Fp.js**: A collection of small, reusable functions for functional programming, similar to Ramda.

These alternatives may offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, ease of use, and feature set, so it's worth exploring each one to see which best fits your needs.

remeda vs lodash vs ramda (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: `pipe vs pipe 2`

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

pipe

pipe 2

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 85 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 71 runs

Firefox 14 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

remeda vs lodash vs ramda (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: pipe vs pipe 2

Created: 4 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

pipe

pipe 2

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 85 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 71 runs

Firefox 14 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: `pipe vs pipe 2`