Benchmark: luxon vs moment (UTC)

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/luxon@1.26.0/build/global/luxon.min.js"></script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/moment.js/2.22.0/moment.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

window.ds = "2020-02-19T00:51:53.623839+01:00";

Tests:

luxon
luxon.DateTime.fromISO(window.ds, { setZone: true }).toString();
moment
moment.utc(window.ds).format();

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
luxon
moment

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 10 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/138.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 138 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
luxon	186714.2 Ops/sec
moment	78024.7 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

I'd be happy to help you understand the JavaScript microbenchmark on MeasureThat.net.

**Overview**

The benchmark compares the performance of two popular date and time libraries: Luxon and Moment.js. The test case uses the `luxon.DateTime.fromISO` method to parse a UTC date string and then converts it back to a string using the `toString()` method.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark is comparing the performance of two approaches:

1. **Luxon**: Using the `luxon.DateTime.fromISO` method with the `setZone` option set to `true`. This approach takes into account the time zone offset when parsing the date string.
2. **Moment.js**: Using the `moment.utc` function with the `.format()` method to format the parsed date.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

1. **Luxon**:
	* Pros: Takes into account the time zone offset, providing more accurate results for dates with different time zones.
	* Cons: May be slower than Moment.js due to its additional processing steps.
2. **Moment.js**:
	* Pros: Fast and efficient, making it suitable for high-performance applications.
	* Cons: Does not take into account the time zone offset, which may lead to inaccuracies when working with dates in different time zones.

**Library Used**

The benchmark uses two popular JavaScript libraries:

1. **Luxon**: A modern date and time library that provides a simple and intuitive API for working with dates.
2. **Moment.js**: A widely-used date and time library that provides a robust set of features for manipulating dates.

**Special JS Feature/Syntax**

None mentioned in the benchmark definition, but it's worth noting that Luxon uses a more modern syntax for date and time manipulation, which may make it easier to read and write code. Moment.js has its own syntax and API, which can take some getting used to.

**Other Considerations**

1. **Platform**: The benchmark is running on a Linux desktop platform with Chrome 121 as the browser.
2. **Test Environment**: The benchmark executes multiple times per second, providing an accurate measure of performance.

**Alternatives**

For those interested in exploring alternative date and time libraries for JavaScript, some popular options include:

1. **Date-fns**: A lightweight library that provides a simple and intuitive API for working with dates.
2. **Day.js**: A modern date and time library that provides a robust set of features for manipulating dates.
3. **js-joda**: A Java-based library for working with dates, which has been ported to JavaScript.

These libraries offer different trade-offs in terms of performance, ease of use, and feature set, so it's worth exploring each option to determine the best fit for your specific needs.

Related benchmarks:

luxon vs moment (UTC) (version: 3)

Comparing performance of: luxon vs moment

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

luxon

moment

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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