Benchmark: Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat2

Script Preparation code:

var name = "name lkjasdl;fj la;sflk;asdjf l;kj l;aksdjfla;kjs lka;sdjf la;ksdjf l;aksdjfl ;askd l;aksjf als;kdjf la;skdjfl;aksdjfl;aksdfl;aksdjf l; l;aksdjf ;laskdjf l;aksdjf l;askdjfl;askdjf;laskdj fl;aksdjf las;kd fal;sdf al;skdfjla;ksdjfl;aksdjf la;skdjfla;ksdjfla;skdjfla;skdfjals;kdjfa;lskdfjals;kdfjal;skdfjals;kdfjal;skdfjal;skj a asd;lfkjasl;kd fl; kasdf l;askdj l;askdj ;ladskfja;lsdkfj al;sdkfj ;l asld;kfj as;ldkfja l;sdkfj al;skdfj as;ldkfj asl;dkf. l;asdkfj al;skdfj a;lkasdfj ;laksdfj a;sldkfj a;slasdflkj asl;dkfj asdl; asl;dkfj asl;dkfjasl;dkfj a;lsdfjla;skdfj al;sdkjf lk;sadf asl;kdfja s;ldkfj asl;dkfj als;kdfj als;kdfj a;lskdfj al;skdfj als;kdfj a;lskdfj as;lkdf. asldf asl;kdf als;dkf asld;kfjasl;dkfj asl;kdfaslkd fa;lskd aslk;dfj asl;dkfj als;dfkjasl;dkfj asl;kdfj als;kdfj asl;kdfj asl;kdf aslk;d fljasdfkjasldk;fja s;lkdfj al;skdfjal;ksdfj lak;sdf a;lskdfj l;askdfj l;askdfj a;lskdj alskdfja l;skdfj als;kdfj asd;lkfjasdl;kfasdjf al;skdfj a;lskdfj a;lskdfj als;kdfj al; as ldkfjas l;dkfj asl;dfajsl;kdfj asl;kdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj als;kdfj als;kdfj slkda asl;kdfj l;askdfj al;skdf alsk;df alsk;dfj as;lkdfj l;askdfj laskdf";
var id = "id name lkjasdl;fj la;sflk;asdjf l;kj l;aksdjfla;kjs lka;sdjf la;ksdjf l;aksdjfl ;askd l;aksjf als;kdjf la;skdjfl;aksdjfl;aksdfl;aksdjf l; l;aksdjf ;laskdjf l;aksdjf l;askdjfl;askdjf;laskdj fl;aksdjf las;kd fal;sdf al;skdfjla;ksdjfl;aksdjf la;skdjfla;ksdjfla;skdjfla;skdfjals;kdjfa;lskdfjals;kdfjal;skdfjals;kdfjal;skdfjal;skj a asd;lfkjasl;kd fl; kasdf l;askdj l;askdj ;ladskfja;lsdkfj al;sdkfj ;l asld;kfj as;ldkfja l;sdkfj al;skdfj as;ldkfj asl;dkf. l;asdkfj al;skdfj a;lkasdfj ;laksdfj a;sldkfj a;slasdflkj asl;dkfj asdl; asl;dkfj asl;dkfjasl;dkfj a;lsdfjla;skdfj al;sdkjf lk;sadf asl;kdfja s;ldkfj asl;dkfj als;kdfj als;kdfj a;lskdfj al;skdfj als;kdfj a;lskdfj as;lkdf. asldf asl;kdf als;dkf asld;kfjasl;dkfj asl;kdfaslkd fa;lskd aslk;dfj asl;dkfj als;dfkjasl;dkfj asl;kdfj als;kdfj asl;kdfj asl;kdf aslk;d fljasdfkjasldk;fja s;lkdfj al;skdfjal;ksdfj lak;sdf a;lskdfj l;askdfj l;askdfj a;lskdj alskdfja l;skdfj als;kdfj asd;lkfjasdl;kfasdjf al;skdfj a;lskdfj a;lskdfj als;kdfj al; as ldkfjas l;dkfj asl;dfajsl;kdfj asl;kdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj al;skdfj als;kdfj als;kdfj slkda asl;kdfj l;askdfj al;skdf alsk;df alsk;dfj as;lkdfj l;askdfj laskdf";

Tests:

using plus operator
for (let i = 0; i < 80000; ++i) { let result = id + ": 1, " + name + ": someItem"; }
using concat function
for (let i = 0; i < 80000; ++i) { let result = "".concat(id, ": 1, ", name, ": someItem"); }
using template literals
for (let i = 0; i < 80000; ++i) { let result = `${id}: 1, ${name}: someItem`; }

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 32 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 23 runs

using template literals

127/s

using concat function

113/s

using plus operator

112/s

Fastest: using template literals (1.1x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ using template literals: 127 ops/sec
• using concat function: 113 ops/sec
• using plus operator: 112 ops/sec

Firefox 9 runs

using template literals

179/s

using plus operator

177/s

using concat function

143/s

Fastest: using template literals (1.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ using template literals: 179 ops/sec
• using plus operator: 177 ops/sec
• using concat function: 143 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
using plus operator
using concat function
using template literals

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 6 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:148.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/148.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 148 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

using plus operator

112/s

using template literals

112/s

using concat function

98/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ using plus operator	112 Ops/sec
using template literals	112 Ops/sec
using concat function	98 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is comparing three different ways to concatenate strings in JavaScript:

1. **Using the `+` operator**
2. **Using the `concat()` function**
3. **Using template literals**

The benchmark consists of a single variable, `id`, which is set to `"someId"` (not shown in the provided code), and another variable, `name`, which is also not shown. The benchmark creates a string by concatenating these two variables with some text.

**Test Cases**

There are three test cases:

1. **Using the `+` operator**: This test case uses the `+` operator to concatenate the strings.
2. **Using the `concat()` function**: This test case uses the `concat()` function to concatenate the strings.
3. **Using template literals**: This test case uses template literals (`${}`) to concatenate the strings.

**Benchmark Results**

The benchmark results show the performance of each method for 80000 iterations:

1. **Using the `+` operator**: The browser executed approximately 204 executions per second (with a slight variation).
2. **Using the `concat()` function**: The browser executed approximately 201 executions per second.
3. **Using template literals**: The browser executed approximately 182 executions per second.

**Observations**

Based on these results, it appears that:

* Using the `+` operator is slightly faster than using the `concat()` function and template literals.
* Template literals are slower than both of the other methods.

These results may vary depending on the specific use case, JavaScript engine, and hardware platform.

Keep in mind that this benchmark only measures the performance of these three string concatenation methods and does not account for potential factors like memory allocation, garbage collection, or CPU overhead.

Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat2 (version: 0) Benchmark.js

find best solution for concatenate 4 strings

Comparing performance of: `using plus operator vs using concat function vs using template literals`

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

using plus operator

using concat function

using template literals

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 32 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 23 runs

Firefox 9 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Native JS: concatenate string with + vs template literals vs String.concat2 (version: 0) Benchmark.js

find best solution for concatenate 4 strings

Comparing performance of: using plus operator vs using concat function vs using template literals

Created: 3 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

using plus operator

using concat function

using template literals

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 32 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 23 runs

Firefox 9 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: `using plus operator vs using concat function vs using template literals`