Benchmark: lodash uniqueId vs crypto.randomUUID

Tests:

lodash
_.uniqueId()
ES
crypto.randomUUID()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 39 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 33 runs

lodash

48.4M/s

794K/s

Fastest: lodash (61.0x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ lodash: 48,448,920 ops/sec
• ES: 793,718 ops/sec

Firefox 6 runs

lodash

442.4M/s

1.2M/s

Fastest: lodash (361.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ lodash: 442,382,400 ops/sec
• ES: 1,223,534 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
lodash
ES

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 11 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 OPR/120.0.0.0 (Edition Yx 08)

Browser/OS: Opera 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

lodash

215.9M/s

2.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ lodash	215,855,696 Ops/sec
ES	2,123,469 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**What is being tested?**

MeasureThat.net is testing two different approaches to generating unique identifiers: `_uniqueId()` from the Lodash library and `crypto.randomUUID()` from the Node.js built-in `crypto` module.

**Options compared**

The two options are:

1. **_uniqueId() from Lodash**: This function generates a unique identifier as a string. It's designed to be cryptographically secure, but its security guarantees may not be suitable for all use cases.
2. **crypto.randomUUID() from Node.js**: This function generates a random UUID (Universally Unique Identifier) as a string. It's designed to be cryptographically secure and is widely used in Node.js applications.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **_uniqueId() from Lodash**:
	* Pros: Easy to use, fast, and well-tested.
	* Cons: Not suitable for cryptographic purposes (e.g., generating unique tokens), may not be as secure as other options.
2. **crypto.randomUUID() from Node.js**:
	* Pros: Cryptographically secure, widely adopted, and suitable for most use cases.
	* Cons: May not be as fast as _uniqueId(), requires additional dependencies.

**Library used**

The `lodash` library is a popular utility library that provides a wide range of functions for various tasks. In this benchmark, `_uniqueId()` is used to generate unique identifiers.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There isn't any special JavaScript feature or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The focus is on comparing the performance and security of two different approaches to generating unique identifiers.

**Other alternatives**

If you need a more secure or fast way to generate unique identifiers, you may consider using other libraries or modules, such as:

* `uuid`: A popular library for generating UUIDs.
* `crypto-js`: A library that provides cryptographic functions, including UUID generation.
* Custom implementations using algorithms like the Hash-based Message Authentication Code (HMAC).

Keep in mind that the choice of library or implementation depends on your specific use case and requirements.

lodash uniqueId vs crypto.randomUUID (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `lodash vs ES`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

lodash

ES

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 39 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 33 runs

Firefox 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

lodash uniqueId vs crypto.randomUUID (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: lodash vs ES

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

lodash

ES

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 39 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 33 runs

Firefox 6 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: `lodash vs ES`