Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
isNaN vs Number.isNaN
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
global isNaN vs method isNaN
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
Tests:
global isNaN
isNaN(9)
method isNaN
Number.isNaN(9)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
global isNaN
method isNaN
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_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/141.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 141 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=619196" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
global isNaN
232774992.0 Ops/sec
method isNaN
236115056.0 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the provided benchmarking test cases and explain what is being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The benchmark tests two approaches to check if a number is NaN (Not a Number): using the global `isNaN` function versus calling it as a method on the `Number` object (`Number.isNaN()`). **Options Compared** 1. **Global `isNaN`**: This approach checks if the `isNaN` function is available globally, without any context or wrapper. 2. **Method call on `Number` object (`Number.isNaN()`)**: This approach tests if the `Number.isNaN()` method exists and can be called directly on the `Number` object. **Pros and Cons** 1. **Global `isNaN`**: * Pros: This approach is simpler, as it doesn't require any additional context or wrapper. * Cons: If the browser or environment doesn't have a global `isNaN` function available, this test will fail. 2. **Method call on `Number` object (`Number.isNaN()`)**: * Pros: This approach ensures that the method is called correctly and provides a more robust way to check for NaN values. * Cons: It requires an additional step (calling the method as a property of the `Number` object), which might add overhead. **Library Usage** None of the test cases use any external libraries. **Special JS Features or Syntax** There are no special JavaScript features or syntax used in these test cases. They only rely on standard ECMAScript functionality. **Other Alternatives** If you were to create a similar benchmark, you could also include tests for: * Checking if `isNaN` is available as a global variable using `typeof isNaN === 'function'` * Using other approaches like `Number.isFinite()` or custom implementation * Testing different browser versions or platforms Keep in mind that the specific test cases and their variations will depend on your goals and the specific requirements of your project. In summary, this benchmark tests two common ways to check if a number is NaN: using the global `isNaN` function versus calling it as a method on the `Number` object. The benchmark provides insights into which approach is faster and more reliable in different browser environments.
Related benchmarks:
Native isNaN() vs Custom isNaN method
typeof number vs. Number.isNan vs. isNan
typeof x === 'number' vs Number.isNaN(x)
typeof number vs. Number.isNan vs. isNan vs self comparison. Versus let
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?