Benchmark: JSON.stringify vs structuredClone 3

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject = {
  description: 'Creates a deep copy of source, which should be an object or an array.',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  jayson: {
    stringify: 'JSON.stringify() method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string....',
    parse: 'JSON.parse() method parses a JSON string...'
  }
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

JSON.stringify
var obj = { [Math.random(2000).toString()]: Math.random(2000).toString(), ...MyObject, [Math.random(2000).toString()]: Math.random(2000).toString(), }; myCopy = JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj));
structuredClone
var obj = { [Math.random(2000).toString()]: Math.random(2000).toString(), ...MyObject, [Math.random(2000).toString()]: Math.random(2000).toString(), }; myCopy = structuredClone(obj);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON.stringify
structuredClone

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/143.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 143 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

JSON.stringify

311K/s

structuredClone

242K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ JSON.stringify	310,628 Ops/sec
structuredClone	242,371 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of `JSON.stringify()` and `structuredClone()` in creating a deep copy of an object. The object has some randomly generated properties, including arrays and a nested object with a string value.

**Options Compared**

Two options are compared:

1. **`JSON.stringify()`**: This method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string, which is then parsed back into a JavaScript object using `JSON.parse()`. The resulting object is not a deep copy of the original.
2. **`structuredClone()`**: This is a relatively new function introduced in JavaScript 2020 (ECMAScript 2020) as part of the WebAssembly feature. It creates a deep clone of an object, including arrays and nested objects.

**Pros and Cons**

**`JSON.stringify()`**:

Pros:

* Widely supported and well-established.
* Can be used to serialize data for storage or transmission.

Cons:

* Not a deep copy, as it only serializes the object's values, not its references. This can lead to unexpected behavior when modifying the copied object.
* Can be slower than `structuredClone()` due to the additional parsing step.

**`structuredClone()`**:

Pros:

* Creates a true deep copy of the object, including arrays and nested objects.
* Optimized for performance compared to `JSON.stringify()`.
* Newer and more modern function.

Cons:

* Less widely supported (only available in JavaScript 2020+).
* Requires special consideration when working with older browsers or environments.

**Library and Special JS Feature**

In this benchmark, no specific library is used. However, note that the use of `structuredClone()` relies on a relatively new JavaScript feature.

**Test Case Analysis**

The two test cases are identical, but they differ in the implementation:

1. **`JSON.stringify()`**: This test case uses the `JSON.stringify()` method to create a copy of the object.
2. **`structuredClone()`**: This test case uses the `structuredClone()` function to create a deep clone of the object.

Both tests aim to measure the performance difference between these two approaches.

**Other Alternatives**

If you need an alternative for creating deep copies, consider using:

1. **Lodash's `cloneDeep()` method**: A popular library that provides a safe and efficient way to create deep clones.
2. **Underscore.js's `_cloneDeep()` function**: Another widely used library that offers similar functionality.

These alternatives can provide more flexibility and control over the cloning process, but they may introduce additional dependencies or complexity.

JSON.stringify vs structuredClone 3 (version: 0)

JSON.stringify vs structuredClone

Comparing performance of: `JSON.stringify vs structuredClone`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

JSON.stringify

structuredClone

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

JSON.stringify vs structuredClone 3 (version: 0)

JSON.stringify vs structuredClone

Comparing performance of: JSON.stringify vs structuredClone

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

JSON.stringify

structuredClone

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: `JSON.stringify vs structuredClone`