Benchmark: Intl.NumberFormat vs Number.toLocaleString

Tests:

Intl.NumberFormat
const value = 1234.56 const result = new Intl.NumberFormat(`en-GB`, { currency: `GBP`, style: `currency`, }).format(value);
Number.toLocaleString
const value = 1234.56 const result = value.toLocaleString(`en-GB`, { currency: `GBP`, style: `currency`, })

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:

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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches to format a number as currency:

1. `Number.toLocaleString` (Test Case 2)
2. `Intl.NumberFormat` (Test Case 1)

Specifically, both tests use the `en-GB` locale and format options for GBP currency with the "currency" style.

**Options compared**

The two approaches differ in how they handle formatting:

* `Number.toLocaleString`: This method uses a built-in JavaScript function to format the number as a string according to the specified locale. The formatting rules are defined by the locale.
* `Intl.NumberFormat`: This is an internationalized version of `Number.prototype.toFixed`, which provides more control over the formatting process. It allows specifying exact formatting options using a configuration object.

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary:

**`Number.toLocaleString`:**

Pros:

* Simple, easy to use
* Fast execution

Cons:

* Limited control over formatting
* May not work correctly for all locales or currencies

**`Intl.NumberFormat`:**

Pros:

* More control over formatting options
* Works with multiple locales and currencies

Cons:

* More complex usage
* Slower execution compared to `toLocaleString`

**Library and purpose**

In the first test case, the `Intl` (Internationalization) library is used. This library provides internationalized functions for handling languages and scripts. The `NumberFormat` class is a part of this library and allows you to format numbers with specific locales and formatting options.

**Special JavaScript feature or syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax mentioned in the benchmark, but it's worth noting that `Intl.NumberFormat` uses Unicode characters for currency symbols (e.g., GBP) which might not display correctly in all fonts or platforms.

**Other alternatives**

If you need more control over formatting or want to support multiple locales and currencies, consider using the following libraries:

* ICU (International Components for Unicode): A comprehensive library for handling languages and scripts.
* Moment.js: A popular date and time formatting library that can be used with `Intl.NumberFormat`.
* js-currency-formatter: A lightweight library specifically designed for formatting currencies.

In summary, the benchmark tests two approaches to format numbers as currency: `Number.toLocaleString` (simple and fast) vs. `Intl.NumberFormat` (more control over formatting). The choice between these options depends on your specific requirements and performance needs.

Related benchmarks:

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

Comparing performance of: Intl.NumberFormat vs Number.toLocaleString

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

Intl.NumberFormat

Number.toLocaleString

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):