Benchmark: Obfuscator vs. non obfuscated

Tests:

Default code
// Paste your JavaScript code here function hi() { console.log("Hello World!"); hello(); } function hello(){ var a = "a"; var b = "b"; log(a,b); } function log(foo,bar){ console.log(foo,bar); } hi();
Obfuscated
(function(_0x263f11,_0x1dbcfd){var _0x291091=_0x1450,_0x4ceef4=_0x263f11();while(!![]){try{var _0xe65355=-parseInt(_0x291091(0x75))/0x1*(-parseInt(_0x291091(0x7b))/0x2)+-parseInt(_0x291091(0x71))/0x3+-parseInt(_0x291091(0x7a))/0x4*(-parseInt(_0x291091(0x76))/0x5)+parseInt(_0x291091(0x77))/0x6+-parseInt(_0x291091(0x74))/0x7*(parseInt(_0x291091(0x72))/0x8)+parseInt(_0x291091(0x78))/0x9*(parseInt(_0x291091(0x79))/0xa)+-parseInt(_0x291091(0x73))/0xb;if(_0xe65355===_0x1dbcfd)break;else _0x4ceef4['push'](_0x4ceef4['shift']());}catch(_0x43f811){_0x4ceef4['push'](_0x4ceef4['shift']());}}}(_0x4221,0x58601));function hi(){console['log']('Hello\x20World!'),hello();}function _0x1450(_0x5c6f7a,_0xb796d9){var _0x422193=_0x4221();return _0x1450=function(_0x1450f6,_0x1b1b8f){_0x1450f6=_0x1450f6-0x71;var _0x2ee370=_0x422193[_0x1450f6];return _0x2ee370;},_0x1450(_0x5c6f7a,_0xb796d9);}function hello(){var _0x277a55='a',_0x252a04='b';log(_0x277a55,_0x252a04);}function _0x4221(){var _0x3e517b=['1116dUtdOP','2lYMsEN','533883KqYmXG','1789368ONPiif','4146681zZVppB','14llMatN','474967SCxgPU','3370Ekdhnm','566238tqZODc','1820619hxwcdt','30AovKfI'];_0x4221=function(){return _0x3e517b;};return _0x4221();}function log(_0x477fee,_0x201eba){console['log'](_0x477fee,_0x201eba);}hi();
Minified
function hi(){console.log("Hello World!"),hello()}function hello(){log("a","b")}function log(o,l){console.log(o,l)}hi();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Default code
Obfuscated
Minified

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:134.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/134.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 134 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Default code	66550.0 Ops/sec
Obfuscated	60888.2 Ops/sec
Minified	68581.6 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'll provide an explanation of the benchmark, its options, pros and cons, library usage, special JS features, and alternatives.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark compares three versions of a JavaScript code: "Default code", "Minified" (obfuscated), and "Obfuscated". The goal is to measure the performance difference between these versions.

**Options Compared**

1. **Default Code**: This version has no obfuscation or minification applied.
2. **Minified Code**: This version uses a tool like UglifyJS to compress and remove unnecessary characters, making it smaller in size.
3. **Obfuscated Code**: This version is intentionally made more difficult for humans to understand by using techniques like string encoding, variable renaming, and function reordering.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Default Code**:
	+ Pros: Human-readable, easy to debug and maintain.
	+ Cons: Larger in size, potentially slower due to overhead of parsing and executing the code.
* **Minified Code**:
	+ Pros: Smaller in size, faster execution, as it eliminates unnecessary characters.
	+ Cons: More difficult for humans to understand and maintain.
* **Obfuscated Code**:
	+ Pros: Can be challenging to reverse-engineer or debug, potentially leading to better security.
	+ Cons: Large difference in performance between minified and obfuscated versions.

**Library Usage**

None of the benchmark cases use any specific libraries. However, the `UglifyJS` tool is implied as the tool used for minification (Minified code).

**Special JS Features**

1. **Immediately Invoked Function Expression (IIFE)**: The "Obfuscated" code uses an IIFE to create a new scope and hide variables from outer scopes.
2. **String Encoding**: The "Obfuscated" code uses string encoding techniques, like `%` symbols, to make variable names more difficult to guess.

**Alternatives**

Other approaches for measuring performance differences in JavaScript include:

1. **Node.js Benchmarks**: Measure execution time on a Node.js server.
2. **ES6 benchmarking libraries**: Tools like `Benchmark.js`, ` jsperf`, or `benchmark` provide a simpler way to write and compare benchmarks.
3. **WebAssembly (WASM)**: Measure performance differences using WASM, which provides a more direct interface between JavaScript and the hardware.

When writing your own benchmarks, consider factors such as:

* Use of modern JavaScript features
* Eliminating unnecessary overhead (e.g., parsing, garbage collection)
* Using consistent data structures and algorithms across different versions
* Considering device-specific optimizations

Keep in mind that performance differences can be influenced by various factors beyond just the code itself, such as hardware capabilities, browser versions, and network conditions.

Related benchmarks:

Obfuscator vs. non obfuscated (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Default code vs Obfuscated vs Minified

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Default code

Obfuscated

Minified

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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