Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
obfuscator.io low preset vs no obfuscation 2
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
obfuscation vs no obfuscation performance
Comparing performance of:
Obfuscated (low preset) code vs Non-obfuscated code
Created:
3 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
Obfuscated (low preset) code
function _0x1828(){var _0x144333=['848924aTuPJM','1773912NDpROP','3070746kYXrFw','5885585fdTsAm','1741986GzpRap','1132536nqhXol','3857920pVvnkR'];_0x1828=function(){return _0x144333;};return _0x1828();}(function(_0x529674,_0x585086){var _0x56e0a8=_0xc20e,_0x50e5ac=_0x529674();while(!![]){try{var _0x1a1f25=parseInt(_0x56e0a8(0x19d))/0x1+parseInt(_0x56e0a8(0x19b))/0x2+parseInt(_0x56e0a8(0x19a))/0x3+-parseInt(_0x56e0a8(0x19c))/0x4+-parseInt(_0x56e0a8(0x199))/0x5+parseInt(_0x56e0a8(0x198))/0x6+parseInt(_0x56e0a8(0x19e))/0x7;if(_0x1a1f25===_0x585086)break;else _0x50e5ac['push'](_0x50e5ac['shift']());}catch(_0x851b58){_0x50e5ac['push'](_0x50e5ac['shift']());}}}(_0x1828,0x973c8));function hi(){console['log']('Hello\x20World!');}function _0xc20e(_0x41ed62,_0x523817){var _0x182836=_0x1828();return _0xc20e=function(_0xc20e05,_0x4565ac){_0xc20e05=_0xc20e05-0x198;var _0x9c4737=_0x182836[_0xc20e05];return _0x9c4737;},_0xc20e(_0x41ed62,_0x523817);}hi();
Non-obfuscated code
// Paste your JavaScript code here function hi() { console.log("Hello World!"); } hi();
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
Obfuscated (low preset) code
Non-obfuscated code
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
2 years ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 120 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=495987" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Non-obfuscated code
60K/s
Obfuscated (low preset) code
19K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Non-obfuscated code
59,903 Ops/sec
Obfuscated (low preset) code
18,771 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and its test cases. **Benchmark Overview** The `MeasureThat.net` website allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The provided benchmark compares the performance of two types of code: obfuscated (low preset) and non-obfuscated code. **Options Compared** In this benchmark, we have two options: 1. **Obfuscated Code**: The first test case has a small piece of JavaScript code that uses a custom implementation of the `parseInt` function to concatenate strings with numbers. This is an example of code obfuscation, where the code is intentionally made difficult to understand or read. 2. **Non-Obfuscated Code**: The second test case has a simple "Hello World!" message printed to the console using the built-in `console.log()` function. **Pros and Cons** * **Obfuscated Code**: + Pros: Can be used to hide malicious code, make it harder for attackers to understand the intent of the code. + Cons: May result in slower execution times due to the custom implementation, which can lead to performance issues. * **Non-Obfuscated Code**: + Pros: Faster execution times since it uses built-in functions and libraries that are optimized for performance. + Cons: More readable and maintainable code, but potentially vulnerable to security threats if not properly sanitized. **Libraries and Special Features** In this benchmark, we don't see any explicit library usage or special JavaScript features (like async/await or Promises) being tested. However, it's worth noting that the `parseInt` function is a built-in JavaScript function that can be used in both cases. **Other Considerations** When creating benchmarks, consider the following factors: * **Code readability and maintainability**: Benchmarking code should not prioritize performance over readability. * **Library usage**: If using libraries or frameworks, make sure they are properly initialized and configured to ensure accurate results. * **Device and browser variability**: Test on multiple devices and browsers to account for potential hardware and software differences. **Alternative Benchmarks** Some alternative benchmark types include: * **CPU-bound benchmarks**: Measure the performance of CPU-intensive tasks, such as matrix multiplication or cryptanalysis. * **Memory-bound benchmarks**: Evaluate the performance of memory-intensive tasks, like data compression or encryption. * **Network-based benchmarks**: Test the performance of network operations, like HTTP requests or WebSocket connections. Keep in mind that these alternatives may require more complex setup and configuration than a simple JavaScript microbenchmark.
Related benchmarks
Array.from() vs new Array() + destruct
Array.slice() vs. Spread operator
Array.slice() vs. Spread operator (10000 items)
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?