Benchmark: Vanilla JS VS JQuery AJAX perfomance

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.1.1/jquery.min.js"></script>

Tests:

Vanilla JS
var r = new XMLHttpRequest(); r.open("POST", "http://vanilla-js.com/path/to/api", true); r.onreadystatechange = function () { if (r.readyState != 4 || r.status != 200) return; alert("Success: " + r.responseText); }; r.send("banana=yellow");
Jquery
$.ajax({ type: 'POST', url: "path/to/api", data: "banana=yellow", success: function (data) { alert("Success: " + data); }, });

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Vanilla JS
Jquery

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

No previous run results

This benchmark does not have any results yet. Be the first one to run it!

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview of the Benchmark**

The provided JSON represents a JavaScript microbenchmark, specifically comparing the performance of vanilla JavaScript and jQuery AJAX.

**What is being tested?**

Two test cases are defined:

1. **Vanilla JS**: This test case uses the built-in `XMLHttpRequest` object to send an AJAX request to a server.
2. **JQuery**: This test case uses the jQuery library's `$.ajax()` method to send an AJAX request to the same server.

**Options compared**

The two options being compared are:

* **Vanilla JS vs. JQuery**: The performance difference between using built-in JavaScript functions (XMLHttpRequest) versus a third-party library (jQuery) for making AJAX requests.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **Vanilla JS**:
	+ Pros:
		- No external dependencies, which can reduce bundle size and improve page load times.
		- Can be more efficient since it doesn't require the overhead of a JavaScript library.
	+ Cons:
		- Requires manual handling of XMLHttpRequest object, which can add complexity to the code.
		- May not have built-in support for features like caching or error handling.
* **JQuery**:
	+ Pros:
		- Provides a simple and convenient API for making AJAX requests, reducing development time.
		- Offers features like caching, error handling, and support for multiple request types (e.g., GET, POST).
	+ Cons:
		- Adds an external dependency, which can increase bundle size and impact page load times.
		- May introduce additional overhead due to the library's complexity.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a popular JavaScript library used for DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX requests. In this benchmark, it provides a simple way to make AJAX requests by abstracting away the underlying XMLHttpRequest object.

**Special JS feature or syntax:**

None mentioned in the provided JSON.

**Other alternatives:**

If you prefer not to use jQuery, there are other libraries available that provide similar functionality for making AJAX requests, such as:

* **AJAX.js**: A lightweight library that provides a simple API for making AJAX requests.
* **Axios**: A popular promise-based library for making HTTP requests (not specific to AJAX).
* **Fetch API**: A built-in JavaScript API for making HTTP requests (introduced in modern browsers).

Keep in mind that each of these alternatives has its own trade-offs and performance characteristics, which may affect the results of this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

Vanilla JS VS JQuery AJAX perfomance (version: 0)

Vanilla JS VS JQuery AJAX perfomance

Comparing performance of: Vanilla JS vs Jquery

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Vanilla JS

Jquery

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

No previous run results

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