Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
Feature Requests
FAQ
Register
Log In
jQuery by className vs Document.getElementsByClassName
(version: 0)
Benchmark.js
Comparing speed of getting element by class name with jQuery vs Vanilla JS
Comparing performance of:
jQuery vs Vanilla JS
Created:
8 years ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ajax.aspnetcdn.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-3.1.0.min.js"></script> <div class="testElement"></div>
Tests:
jQuery
var el = $(".testElement")[0]; var className = el.className;
Vanilla JS
var el = document.getElementsByClassName('testElement'); var className = el.className;
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
jQuery
Vanilla JS
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
6 months ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:148.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/148.0
Browser/OS:
Firefox 148 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=626834" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
Vanilla JS
1.3M/s
jQuery
683K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
Vanilla JS
1,321,788 Ops/sec
jQuery
683,112 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
llama3.2:3b
, generated one year ago):
Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested. **Benchmark Overview** The test compares the performance of two approaches to get an element by class name: 1. **jQuery**: Using jQuery's `$()` function to select elements with a specific class name. 2. **Vanilla JS**: Using `document.getElementsByClassName()` method to get all elements with a specific class name and then accessing the first element. **Options Compared** The benchmark compares the performance of two approaches: jQuery and Vanilla JS. **Pros and Cons of Each Approach** 1. **jQuery** * Pros: + Easier to use, especially for complex selections. + Provides a more convenient way to get elements by class name. * Cons: + Requires including the jQuery library, which can add overhead. + May not be as efficient as the Vanilla JS approach. 2. **Vanilla JS** * Pros: + No additional libraries are required. + Can be more efficient than jQuery for simple selections. * Cons: + Requires manual parsing of class names to get elements. **Library: jQuery** jQuery is a popular JavaScript library that simplifies DOM manipulation and provides a convenient way to select elements. In this benchmark, we're using the `jquery-3.1.0.min.js` version. The `$(selector)` function is used to select elements by their class name, which can be more efficient than using `document.getElementsByClassName()`. **Special JS Feature/Syntax: None** There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark. **Other Alternatives** If you're looking for alternative approaches to get elements by class name, you could consider: * Using `document.querySelectorAll()`, which returns a NodeList of all elements that match the selector. * Creating a custom function using `Element.prototype.querySelector` and `Element.prototype.classList.contains`. * Using a library like Lodash, which provides functions like `_.getElementsByClass()`. Keep in mind that these alternatives might not provide the same level of convenience as jQuery or Vanilla JS, but can be useful in specific situations.
Related benchmarks
jQuery vs getElementById vs querySelector jquery 3.6.3
jQuery vs getElementById vs querySelector vs $(getElementById) jquery 3.6.3
jQuery vs querySelector for classes
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?