Benchmark: forEach vs reduce vs map vs filter vs for vs forOf

Script Preparation code:

var arr = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 12345; i++) {
  arr[i] = i;
}

function someFn(i) {
  return (i * 3 * 8 / 1200 * 0.002 / 40 * 0.2);
}

var sumForEach = 0,
  sumReduce = 0,
  sumMap = 0,
  sumFilter = 0,
  sumFor = 0,
  sumForOf = 0;

Tests:

forEach
arr.forEach(item => sumForEach += someFn(item));
reduce
sumReduce = arr.reduce((lastValue, item) => { return sumReduce += someFn(item); });
map
arr.map(item => (sumMap += someFn(item)));
filter
arr.filter(item => (sumFilter += someFn(item)));
for
for (var j = 0; j < arr.length; j++) { sumFor += arr[j]; }
forOf
for (const num of arr) { sumForOf += num; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
forEach
reduce
map
filter
for
forOf

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/120.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 120 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
forEach	255.7 Ops/sec
reduce	257.8 Ops/sec
map	229.1 Ops/sec
filter	230.5 Ops/sec
for	206.4 Ops/sec
forOf	378.8 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

forEach vs reduce vs map vs filter vs for vs forOf (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: forEach vs reduce vs map vs filter vs for vs forOf

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

forEach

reduce

map

filter

for

forOf

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A