Benchmark: addEventListener() vs jQuery.on() with click

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.5.1/jquery.js'></script>
<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>
<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>
<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>
<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>
<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>
<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>
<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>
<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>
<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>
<div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div><div></div>

Script Preparation code:

document.querySelectorAll('div').forEach((e) => {
    e.onmouseenter = '';
});
var divs = document.querySelectorAll('div');

Tests:

addEventListener
const f = () => { return 123; }; divs.forEach((e) => { e.addEventListener('click', f); });
addEventListener anon
divs.forEach((e) => { e.addEventListener('click', () => { return 123; }); });
jQuery.on()
const f = () => { return 123; }; document.querySelectorAll('div').forEach((e) => { jQuery(e).on('click', f); });
jQuery.on() anon
document.querySelectorAll('div').forEach((e) => { jQuery(e).on('click', () => { return 123; }); });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
addEventListener
addEventListener anon
jQuery.on()
jQuery.on() anon

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/132.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
addEventListener	106.6 Ops/sec
addEventListener anon	50.1 Ops/sec
jQuery.on()	17952.0 Ops/sec
jQuery.on() anon	16316.8 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Benchmark Overview**

The provided benchmark compares the performance of three approaches to attach an event listener to HTML elements: `addEventListener()` with and without anonymous functions, and `jQuery.on()` with and without anonymous functions.

**Test Cases**

There are four test cases:

1. **`addEventListener`**: Attaches a named function as an event listener.
2. **`addEventListener anon`**: Attaches an anonymous function as an event listener (equivalent to passing a callback function).
3. **`jQuery.on()`**: Attaches an event listener using jQuery's `on()` method with a named function.
4. **`jQuery.on() anon`**: Attaches an event listener using jQuery's `on()` method with an anonymous function.

**Comparison**

The benchmark measures the number of executions per second for each test case. The results show that:

* **`addEventListener anon`** outperforms all other approaches, suggesting that attaching anonymous functions is more efficient.
* **`jQuery.on()` anon`** performs similarly to **`addEventListener anon`**, implying that passing an anonymous function to `on()` has a similar performance profile to attaching a named function with `addEventListener`.
* **`jQuery.on()`** and **`addEventListener`** have different performance profiles, suggesting that the jQuery approach may be slower due to additional overhead.

**Pros and Cons**

1. **`addEventListener anon`**:
	* Pros: Simple, efficient, and widely supported.
	* Cons: May not provide clear error handling or debugging information.
2. **`jQuery.on()` anon**:
	* Pros: Similar performance to `addEventListener anon`, with additional features like event delegation.
	* Cons: Requires jQuery library, which may introduce additional overhead.
3. **`jQuery.on()`**:
	* Pros: Provides a convenient and feature-rich API for handling events.
	* Cons: May introduce additional overhead due to the jQuery library.

**Library Usage**

The `jQuery` library is used in tests 3 and 4, providing a convenient way to attach event listeners with minimal code. However, this also introduces an additional dependency that may affect performance.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None of the test cases use any special JavaScript features or syntax that would require additional explanation.

**Alternatives**

If you need alternative approaches for attaching event listeners, consider:

1. **`addEventListener`**: A lightweight and widely supported approach.
2. **Event delegation**: Use a common ancestor element to attach multiple event listeners to a single function.
3. **Libraries like React or Vue.js**: Provide built-in event handling mechanisms that can simplify your code.

Keep in mind that the choice of approach ultimately depends on your specific use case, performance requirements, and personal preference.

Related benchmarks:

addEventListener() vs jQuery.on() with click (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: addEventListener vs addEventListener anon vs jQuery.on() vs jQuery.on() anon

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

addEventListener

addEventListener anon

jQuery.on()

jQuery.on() anon

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 6 months ago):