Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
crypto.getRandomValues vs Math.random()
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
crypto.getRandomValues() vs Math.random()
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
crypto.getRandomValues()
crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint32Array(1))[0]
Math.random()
Math.random()
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
crypto.getRandomValues()
Math.random()
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/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 130 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=566798" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Math.random()
5.4M/s
crypto.getRandomValues()
390K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Math.random()
5,357,820 Ops/sec
crypto.getRandomValues()
389,808 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested. **Overview** The test measures the performance difference between two approaches: `crypto.getRandomValues()` and `Math.random()`. The goal is to determine which method provides better randomness and consistency for generating random numbers in JavaScript. **Options Compared** * `crypto.getRandomValues()` vs `Math.random()`: These are the two approaches being compared. `crypto.getRandomValues()` is a system-provided function that generates cryptographically secure pseudo-random numbers, while `Math.random()` uses an algorithm-based approach to generate pseudo-random numbers. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** * **`crypto.getRandomValues()`**: Pros: + Provides cryptographically secure random numbers, suitable for applications requiring high security. + Can be used for generating truly unpredictable numbers. * Cons: + May have performance overhead due to its security-focused nature. * `Math.random()`: Pros: + Fast and efficient, making it suitable for high-performance applications. + Easy to use and integrate into existing codebases. * Cons: + Generates pseudo-random numbers that may not be suitable for cryptographic purposes or applications requiring extremely high randomness. **Library and Its Purpose** The `crypto` module is a built-in JavaScript library that provides various functions for cryptography, random number generation, and more. In this case, the `getRandomValues()` function is used to generate cryptographically secure pseudo-random numbers. The purpose of this function is to provide a reliable way to generate truly unpredictable random numbers suitable for security-critical applications. **Special JS Feature or Syntax** None mentioned in this specific benchmark. **Other Considerations** * Performance: The test measures the execution rate (executions per second) of each approach, indicating which one performs better. * Security: As mentioned earlier, `crypto.getRandomValues()` provides cryptographically secure random numbers, making it more suitable for security-critical applications. `Math.random()`, on the other hand, generates pseudo-random numbers that may not be sufficient for such use cases. **Alternatives** Other alternatives for generating random numbers in JavaScript include: * The `web crypto API` (Web Cryptography API): A more modern and secure way of generating cryptographically secure random numbers. * External libraries like `random-js`, `randkit`, or `crypto-random-filler`: These libraries provide additional features, such as seeded random number generators, for applications requiring high-quality randomness. Keep in mind that the choice of approach depends on the specific use case, performance requirements, and security concerns.
Related benchmarks
repeated Math.random() vs crypto.getRandomValues()
Math.random vs crypto.getRandom Alberto
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?