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: "http://vanilla-js.com/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:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/136.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 136 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Vanilla JS	75690.2 Ops/sec
Jquery	33807.8 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a platform that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks. The benchmark in question compares the performance of Vanilla JS vs JQuery AJAX.

**What is tested?**

The provided JSON represents two test cases:

1. **Vanilla JS**: This test case uses the native `XMLHttpRequest` API 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**: The native `XMLHttpRequest` API is used for sending AJAX requests.
* **JQuery**: The jQuery library's `$.ajax()` method is used for sending AJAX requests.

**Pros and Cons of each approach**

1. **Vanilla JS (Native XMLHttpRequest)**:
	* Pros:
		+ Low overhead: No additional library dependencies are required.
		+ Direct access to the browser's native API.
	* Cons:
		+ Steeper learning curve due to its more verbose syntax.
		+ Less feature-rich compared to jQuery.
2. **JQuery ($.ajax())**:
	* Pros:
		+ Higher-level abstraction: Simplifies AJAX requests and reduces boilerplate code.
		+ Feature-rich: Offers various options for customizing requests and handling responses.
	* Cons:
		+ Additional library dependency required.
		+ Potential performance overhead due to the additional layer.

**Library: JQuery**

JQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation, event handling, and AJAX requests. The `$.ajax()` method provides an easy-to-use interface for sending AJAX requests, which can simplify the code compared to using native `XMLHttpRequest`.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark.

**Other alternatives**

If you prefer to use a different library or framework for your AJAX requests, some alternatives include:

* **Fetch API**: A modern, promise-based API for sending HTTP requests.
* **Axios**: A popular, promise-based library for making HTTP requests.
* **jQuery's $.get()` and $.post() methods**: Alternative ways to send GET and POST requests using jQuery.

Keep in mind that each alternative has its own pros and cons, and the choice ultimately depends on your project's specific requirements and your personal preference.

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

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