Benchmark: toFixed().replace() vs Intl.NumberFormat()

Script Preparation code:

const number = 123.4567;
const text = '123.4567';

Tests:

toFixed().replace()
const number = 123.4567; const a = number.toFixed(2).replace('.', ',');
Number().toFixed().replace()
const text = '123.4567'; const b = Number(text).toFixed(2).replace('.', ',')
Intl.NumberFormat()
const number = 123.4567; const c = new Intl.NumberFormat('lv-LV', { maximumFractionDigits: 2, minimumFractionDigits: 2 }).format(number);
text Intl.NumberFormat()
const text = '123.4567'; const c = new Intl.NumberFormat('lv-LV', { maximumFractionDigits: 2, minimumFractionDigits: 2 }).format(text);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 17 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 17 runs

toFixed().replace()

8.6M/s

Number().toFixed().replace()

6.5M/s

text Intl.NumberFormat()

65K/s

Intl.NumberFormat()

65K/s

Fastest: toFixed().replace() (133.3x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ toFixed().replace(): 8,638,186 ops/sec
• Number().toFixed().replace(): 6,541,954 ops/sec
• text Intl.NumberFormat(): 64,796 ops/sec
• Intl.NumberFormat(): 64,783 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
toFixed().replace()
Number().toFixed().replace()
Intl.NumberFormat()
text Intl.NumberFormat()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/137.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/137.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 137 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

toFixed().replace()

12.1M/s

Number().toFixed().replace()

11.9M/s

Intl.NumberFormat()

62K/s

text Intl.NumberFormat()

61K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ toFixed().replace()	12,145,684 Ops/sec
Number().toFixed().replace()	11,914,457 Ops/sec
Intl.NumberFormat()	61,821 Ops/sec
text Intl.NumberFormat()	60,965 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 is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark compares three different approaches to convert a decimal number with two digits after the point to a string representation in a specific format:

1. `toFixed().replace()`: This approach uses the built-in `toFixed()` method to convert the number to a string, followed by replacing the decimal point (`.`) with a comma (`,`).
2. `Number().toFixed().replace()`: This approach wraps the number conversion in an additional step using the `Number()` function, which parses the input string as a number.
3. `Intl.NumberFormat()`: This approach uses the Internationalization API's `NumberFormat` class to format the number as a string.

**Options Compared**

The three approaches differ in how they handle the decimal point and fractional digits:

* `toFixed().replace()`: Replaces the decimal point with a comma (`,`), effectively converting the number to a European-style format.
* `Number().toFixed().replace()`: First parses the input string as a number, then converts it back to a string using `toFixed()`, which can lead to precision issues if the original string has trailing zeros or decimal points. Finally, replaces the decimal point with a comma (`,`).
* `Intl.NumberFormat()`: Formats the number as a string in a specific format, which may vary depending on the locale and configuration.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each approach:

* `toFixed().replace()`:
	+ Pros: Simple, fast, and widely supported.
	+ Cons: May lead to precision issues if the original string has trailing zeros or decimal points. Not suitable for all locales (e.g., American-style format).
* `Number().toFixed().replace()`: 
	+ Pros: Can handle complex formatting scenarios, but may introduce precision issues due to intermediate conversions.
	+ Cons: Adds unnecessary complexity and potential errors.
* `Intl.NumberFormat()`:
	+ Pros: Flexible, locale-aware, and precise. Supports various formats and configurations.
	+ Cons: May be slower than the other two approaches due to its additional overhead.

**Library and Special Features**

The benchmark uses the following library:

* `Intl.NumberFormat`: A built-in JavaScript API for internationalization and localization, introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6).

No special JavaScript features or syntax are used in this benchmark. All code is written in standard ECMAScript.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches to achieve similar results might include:

* Using a library like moment.js or date-fns for date and number formatting.
* Implementing custom formatting logic using template literals or regular expressions.
* Leveraging language-specific libraries (e.g., NumberFormat in Java, parseFloat in C++) for locale-aware formatting.

However, these alternatives may not be as flexible or widely supported as the `Intl.NumberFormat()` approach.

toFixed().replace() vs Intl.NumberFormat() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `toFixed().replace() vs Number().toFixed().replace() vs Intl.NumberFormat() vs text Intl.NumberFormat()`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

toFixed().replace()

Number().toFixed().replace()

Intl.NumberFormat()

text Intl.NumberFormat()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 17 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 17 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

toFixed().replace() vs Intl.NumberFormat() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: toFixed().replace() vs Number().toFixed().replace() vs Intl.NumberFormat() vs text Intl.NumberFormat()

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

toFixed().replace()

Number().toFixed().replace()

Intl.NumberFormat()

text Intl.NumberFormat()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 17 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 17 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: `toFixed().replace() vs Number().toFixed().replace() vs Intl.NumberFormat() vs text Intl.NumberFormat()`