Benchmark: String() vs .toString()

Tests:

String()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(String(num)); }
.toString()
let num = 500; let nums = []; for(let i = 0; i < 100; ++i) { nums.push(num.toString()); }

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 182 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 132 runs

.toString()

1.5M/s

String()

197K/s

Fastest: .toString() (7.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ .toString(): 1,474,444 ops/sec
• String(): 197,455 ops/sec

Firefox 39 runs

.toString()

2.6M/s

String()

2.5M/s

View exact numbers

✓ .toString(): 2,639,014 ops/sec
• String(): 2,480,375 ops/sec

Safari 6 runs

.toString()

3.0M/s

String()

1.0M/s

Fastest: .toString() (3.0x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ .toString(): 3,025,818 ops/sec
• String(): 1,001,743 ops/sec

Mobile Results:

Chrome 5 runs

.toString()

227K/s

String()

133K/s

Fastest: .toString() (1.7x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ .toString(): 227,437 ops/sec
• String(): 132,622 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
String()
.toString()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/145.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/145.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 145 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

.toString()

1.8M/s

String()

1.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ .toString()	1,780,528 Ops/sec
String()	1,133,497 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 provided benchmark and explain what's being tested, compared, and their pros and cons.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares two approaches to convert a number `num` to a string: using the `String()` function versus using the `.toString()` method. The test creates an array `nums` and pushes either converted values from both methods into it 100 times.

**Options Compared**

1. **`String(num)`**: This approach uses the built-in `String()` function to convert the number `num` to a string.
2. **`.toString()`**: This approach uses the `.toString()` method, which is also a built-in method in JavaScript.

**Pros and Cons**

* **`String(num)`**:
	+ Pros: Generally faster and more efficient than using `.toString()`.
	+ Cons: May be slightly less readable or intuitive for some developers.
* **`.toString()`**:
	+ Pros: More explicit and easy to understand, especially when converting objects or other non-numeric values.
	+ Cons: May be slower than `String(num)`.

The choice between these two approaches often comes down to personal preference, readability, and the specific use case. If performance is critical and you're working with numbers, `String(num)` might be a better choice. However, if you need more explicit conversion control or are dealing with non-numeric values, `.toString()` could be the way to go.

**Library Use**

Neither of these approaches uses a library in the provided benchmark. The built-in `String()` function and `.toString()` method are part of the JavaScript language itself.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

There is no special JavaScript feature or syntax used in this benchmark beyond what's inherent to the language.

**Other Alternatives**

If you wanted to explore other approaches, here are some alternatives:

* **Using a library**: You could use a library like `lodash` (in particular, its `toNumber()` method) or `util` module (in Node.js) for string conversion.
* **Template literals**: Instead of using the `String()` function or `.toString()`, you could use template literals (the backtick syntax: `` `${expression}``` ) to create a new string.
* **Other methods**: Depending on your specific needs, you might explore other methods like `parseInt()`/`parseFloat()`, `Number()`, or even using regular expressions.

The `String()` function and `.toString()` method remain popular choices due to their simplicity, readability, and performance.

String() vs .toString() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `String() vs .toString()`

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

String()

.toString()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 182 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 132 runs

Firefox 39 runs

Safari 6 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

String() vs .toString() (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: String() vs .toString()

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

String()

.toString()

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 182 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 132 runs

Firefox 39 runs

Safari 6 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 5 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: `String() vs .toString()`