Benchmark: jQuery vs Vanilla JS Speed Test - FP

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="//ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.7.1/jquery.min.js"></script>
<div id="target">Hello World</div>

Tests:

jQuery
var $target = $('body'); for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { $target.append($('<div class="test-div"/>')); }
VanillaJS
for(let i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { const e = document.createElement('div'); e.className = 'test-div'; document.getElementById('target').appendChild(e); }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
jQuery
VanillaJS

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; rv:121.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/121.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 121 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
jQuery	8.2 Ops/sec
VanillaJS	83.2 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**What is being tested on MeasureThat.net?**

MeasureThat.net provides a platform for users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, comparing the performance of different approaches. In this specific benchmark, we're testing two versions: jQuery (a popular JavaScript library) and VanillaJS (plain JavaScript without any libraries).

The benchmark focuses on measuring the execution speed of appending elements to an HTML container using both approaches.

**Options being compared**

Two options are being compared:

1. **jQuery**: Using jQuery's `append` method to add elements to a target element.
2. **VanillaJS**: Using plain JavaScript's `appendChild` method to add elements to a target element.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

**jQuery:**

Pros:

* jQuery provides a convenient and widely-used API for DOM manipulation, making it easy to write and maintain code.
* It abstracts away the underlying implementation details, allowing developers to focus on the logic rather than the technicalities.

Cons:

* The use of a library adds overhead due to file size and load time.
* Depending on the version of jQuery used, performance might be affected by outdated or insecure features.
* The `append` method can lead to slower performance compared to native JavaScript methods when dealing with complex DOM structures.

**VanillaJS:**

Pros:

* Uses plain JavaScript, eliminating any library-related overhead.
* Can provide more fine-grained control over the execution of code, as it's executed directly by the browser.
* Performance is generally faster than using a library like jQuery.

Cons:

* Requires more manual effort to handle DOM manipulation, which can lead to increased development time and complexity.
* Developers must be aware of the underlying implementation details, such as event handling and browser quirks.

**Library: jQuery**

jQuery is a JavaScript library that simplifies HTML manipulation and provides an easy-to-use API for common tasks. It's widely used in web development due to its simplicity and convenience. However, using jQuery comes with some trade-offs regarding performance and control over the execution of code.

In this benchmark, we're testing the relative performance of using jQuery versus plain JavaScript (VanillaJS). We can expect VanillaJS to outperform jQuery due to its lack of overhead from a library.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

There are no specific special features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. However, it's worth noting that the use of `let` and `const` declarations is modern JavaScript syntax introduced in ECMAScript 2015 (ES6). The benchmark uses these keywords to define variables, which were already widely supported by most browsers before ES6 was officially released.

**Other alternatives**

Other alternatives to compare performance could include:

* **React**: A popular front-end library that abstracts away the DOM manipulation details.
* **AngularJS**: Another front-end framework that provides a structured approach to building web applications.
* **Plain JavaScript with DOMContentLoaded event**: Using plain JavaScript and handling the `DOMContentLoaded` event to ensure the document is fully loaded before executing code.

By comparing these alternatives, we can gain a better understanding of the performance characteristics of different libraries and frameworks in the context of this benchmark.

Related benchmarks:

jQuery vs Vanilla JS Speed Test - FP (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs VanillaJS

Comparing performance of: jQuery vs VanillaJS

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

jQuery

VanillaJS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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