Benchmark: String() vs .toString() vs `${string}`

Tests:

String()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String(num)); }
.toString()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num.toString()); }
`${string}`
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(`${num}`); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
String()
.toString()
`${string}`

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 3 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/144.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/144.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 144 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
String()	525013.4 Ops/sec
.toString()	1269161.6 Ops/sec
`${string}`	6218332.0 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 explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three different ways to convert a number (500) to a string in JavaScript: using the `String()` function, the `.toString()` method, and template literals (`${string}`).

**Options Compared**

The three options are compared in terms of execution speed. The test cases create an array and push each option on it 100 times.

* Option 1: `String(num)` (e.g., `nums.push(String(num))`)
* Option 2: `.toString()` (e.g., `nums.push(num.toString())`)
* Option 3: Template literals (`${num}`) (e.g., `nums.push(`${num}`)`)

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Option 1: `String(num)`**
	* Pros:
		+ Wide browser support, as it's a built-in function.
		+ Easy to understand for beginners.
	* Cons:
		+ May be slower due to the overhead of creating a new string object.
2. **Option 2: `.toString()`**
	* Pros:
		+ Often faster than `String(num)` due to optimizations in V8.
		+ Still widely supported, as it's a method on the Number prototype.
	* Cons:
		+ May not work as expected if called on non-numeric values (e.g., strings).
3. **Option 3: Template literals (`${num}`)**
	* Pros:
		+ Often faster than both `.toString()` and `String(num)` due to its internal optimizations.
		+ Provides a more modern and expressive syntax for string conversions.
	* Cons:
		+ May not work in older browsers or environments that don't support template literals.

**Library and Purpose**

The benchmark doesn't rely on any external libraries. It's purely focused on measuring the execution speed of the three different options.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

Template literals (`${string}`) is a feature introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). It allows embedding expressions inside string literals, making it easier to create formatted strings. This feature is widely supported across modern browsers and environments.

**Alternatives**

If you want to optimize string conversions in JavaScript, you can consider the following alternatives:

* Use `String()` or `.toString()` directly on a numeric value, but be aware of potential performance differences.
* Use a library like Lodash's `toNumString()` function for a more concise and readable approach.
* Consider using a different data structure or algorithm to avoid string conversions altogether.

Keep in mind that the best approach depends on your specific use case and requirements. The benchmark results provided by MeasureThat.net can help inform your decision, but it's essential to consider other factors, such as code readability, maintainability, and compatibility with older browsers.

Related benchmarks:

String() vs .toString() vs `${string}` (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String() vs .toString() vs `${string}`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

String()

.toString()

`${string}`

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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