Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone vs JSON Stringify/Parse

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject = {
  description: 'Creates a deep copy of source, which should be an object or an array.',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  jayson: {
    stringify: 'JSON.stringify() method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string....',
    parse: 'JSON.parse() method parses a JSON string...'
  }
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
Native structuredClone
myCopy = structuredClone(MyObject);
JSON Stringify
myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(MyObject));

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Lodash cloneDeep
Native structuredClone
JSON Stringify

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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, along with the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of three methods for creating a deep copy of an object:

1. `structuredClone` (Native)
2. `_.cloneDeep` from Lodash
3. `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`

**Library: structuredClone**

`structuredClone` is a relatively new API introduced in ECMAScript 2020, which allows creating a deep clone of an object without using the `JSON.parse()`/`JSON.stringify()` method. It's designed to be more efficient and safer than the latter approach.

Pros:

* More efficient than `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())`
* Safer, as it doesn't expose the cloned object's internal structure

Cons:

* Limited browser support (only Chrome 106+ and Firefox 93+, others are not yet supported)
* May have performance differences depending on the specific use case

**Library: Lodash cloneDeep**

`.cloneDeep` is a popular utility function in the Lodash library that creates a deep copy of an object.

Pros:

* Wide browser support (works in most modern browsers)
* Well-maintained and widely tested
* Easy to use and integrate into existing codebases

Cons:

* May be slower than `structuredClone` due to its overhead
* Requires an external dependency (Lodash)

**Library: JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())**

The `JSON.parse(JSON.stringify())` method is a simple but inefficient way to create a deep copy of an object.

Pros:

None significant, as it's known for being slow and not recommended for production use.

Cons:

* Inefficient, especially for large objects
* May expose the cloned object's internal structure (e.g., array indices)
* Limited browser support (works in most modern browsers)

**Special JS feature: None**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in this benchmark. The code only uses standard ECMAScript features.

**Other alternatives**

If you need to create a deep copy of an object, here are some other alternatives:

* `Object.assign(null, obj)`: This method creates a shallow copy of the object, which might not be suitable for all use cases.
* `Array.prototype.slice()`: This method can be used to create a shallow copy of arrays.
* Custom implementation using recursion or iteration: These approaches can be highly efficient but require more boilerplate code.

Keep in mind that each approach has its trade-offs, and the best choice depends on your specific requirements, performance constraints, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

Lodash cloneDeep vs structuredClone vs JSON Stringify/Parse (version: 0)

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/structuredClone

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Native structuredClone vs JSON Stringify

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Native structuredClone

JSON Stringify

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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