Toggle navigation
MeasureThat.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Fetch vs axios
(version: 0)
Comparing performance of:
fetch vs axios
Created:
2 years ago
by:
Guest
Jump to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/axios/dist/axios.min.js"></script>
Tests:
fetch
fetch('https://api.surfskip.com') .then(response => response.json()) .then(console.log)
axios
axios.get('https://api.surfskip.com') .then((response) => response.json()) .then(console.log);
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
fetch
axios
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; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/115.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 115 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=580693" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Test name
Executions per second
fetch
7474.0 Ops/sec
axios
3814.9 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks! **What is being tested?** The provided JSON represents two individual test cases: `fetch` and `axios`. These tests aim to measure the performance difference between using the built-in `fetch` API and the popular library `axios`. **Options compared:** Two options are being compared: 1. **Fetch**: The native JavaScript function for making HTTP requests. 2. **Axios**: A popular third-party library for making HTTP requests. **Pros and Cons of each approach:** **Fetch (native):** Pros: * Built-in, no additional dependencies required * Can be used without any libraries or frameworks * Simple to implement Cons: * Can be slower due to the overhead of parsing the request URL and headers * Limited browser support in older versions **Axios:** Pros: * Provides a simple and consistent API for making HTTP requests * Supports additional features like caching, canceling requests, and sending JSON data * Well-maintained and widely adopted Cons: * Requires an additional dependency (axios library) to be installed * May introduce overhead due to the need to parse the request URL and headers **Other considerations:** When choosing between `fetch` and `axios`, consider the following factors: * **Development simplicity**: If you're just starting with a project, using `fetch` might be simpler. However, if you need more features or want to use existing codebase, `axios` is a better choice. * **Performance**: If you need raw speed, `fetch` might be faster due to its native nature. However, `axios` has optimized performance and may be competitive in many cases. * **Browser support**: Make sure both options are supported by your target browsers. **Test case library:** In the provided test case, `axios` is used as a library to compare with `fetch`. Axios provides a simple API for making HTTP requests, which allows users to focus on measuring performance differences between the two approaches. **Special JavaScript feature or syntax:** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes mentioned in this benchmark. The tests solely rely on the provided `fetch` and `axios` APIs. Now that we've covered the basics, let's take a look at other alternatives: * **Other libraries for HTTP requests**: Libraries like jQuery.ajax(), XMLHttpRequest, or even more specialized options like got() or node-fetch (for Node.js) can be used instead of `fetch`. * **Alternative browsers or platforms**: Testing on different browsers or platforms can help identify performance differences and edge cases. These alternative approaches might require adjustments to the benchmark setup and test cases to ensure accurate and comparable results.
Related benchmarks:
axios vs node-fetch
axios vs node-fetchv2.6.7
axios vs fetch
axios vs node-fetchV2
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?