Benchmark: Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat 2

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
const currencyPlayNumber = 1; const translatedString = new Intl.NumberFormat("en-AU", { style: 'currency', currency: 'AUD', }).format(currencyPlayNumber);
Number.toLocaleString
const currencyPlayNumber = 1; const translatedString = currencyPlayNumber.toLocaleString("en-AU", { style: 'currency', currency: 'AUD', })

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Intl.NumberFormat
Number.toLocaleString

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/121.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 121 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Intl.NumberFormat	54060.5 Ops/sec
Number.toLocaleString	56522.1 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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to format numbers as currencies: `Number.toLocaleString` and `Intl.NumberFormat`. The goal is to determine which approach is faster in terms of execution speed.

**Options Compared**

1. **Number.toLocaleString**: This method uses the built-in `toLocaleString` method on the `Number` object, which formats a number according to the locale and options provided.
2. **Intl.NumberFormat**: This method uses the `Intl` API, specifically the `NumberFormat` class, to format numbers as currencies. It takes a locale, style, and currency as arguments.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Number.toLocaleString**:
	* Pros: Simple, widely supported, and works well for simple formatting needs.
	* Cons: May not provide the exact same level of control or customization as `Intl.NumberFormat`.
	* Performance: Generally faster due to its built-in implementation and optimized engine.
2. **Intl.NumberFormat**:
	* Pros: Provides more fine-grained control over formatting, allows for internationalization, and is designed specifically for formatting numbers.
	* Cons: More complex, less widely supported, and may require additional setup or configuration.
	* Performance: May be slower due to the overhead of the `Intl` API and its optional features.

**Library/Extension Considerations**

In this benchmark, neither library is a traditional external dependency. Instead, both methods rely on built-in functionality in modern browsers:

1. **Number.toLocaleString**: This method uses the browser's internal implementation of `toLocaleString`, which is likely an optimized engine.
2. **Intl.NumberFormat**: While `Intl` is a separate API from `Number`, its implementation also relies on the browser's internal resources and optimization.

**Special JavaScript Features/Syntax**

This benchmark does not use any special JavaScript features or syntax beyond standard ECMAScript 2020 (ES12) language features. However, it does rely on:

1. **Locale formatting**: The `Intl.NumberFormat` method uses locale-specific formatting settings, which may require specific locale configurations or resources.
2. **Currency formats**: Both methods use currency formats, which can be affected by regional and cultural differences.

**Alternatives**

For those interested in exploring alternative approaches to number formatting:

1. **Custom implementation**: Writing a custom JavaScript function to format numbers as currencies using basic string manipulation or regular expressions.
2. **Third-party libraries**: Using established libraries like Moment.js, date-fns, or currency-format to handle number formatting and internationalization.
3. **Alternative APIs**: Exploring alternative APIs for internationalization, such as the `date-fns` library's `formatCurrency` function.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, feature sets, and learning curves compared to the built-in methods used in this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Number.toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat 2 (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs Number.toLocaleString

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

Number.toLocaleString

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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