Benchmark: obfuscator.io low preset vs no obfuscation v2

Script Preparation code:

function _0x3f5d(){var _0x23d132=['5922KQcSjm','1560SwvuNj','71015pAGzNc','1447190yTGaoE','6ObNQxE','26817xMekyJ','120780SRZQGw','533055OQYsYl','944328QgitdQ','4pPxbPt','84DIkxzc'];_0x3f5d=function(){return _0x23d132;};return _0x3f5d();}function _0x7422(_0x70e4e5,_0x25469f){var _0x3f5de4=_0x3f5d();return _0x7422=function(_0x74227e,_0xc50072){_0x74227e=_0x74227e-0xb6;var _0x25869f=_0x3f5de4[_0x74227e];return _0x25869f;},_0x7422(_0x70e4e5,_0x25469f);}(function(_0x21210f,_0x3fb751){var _0x545785=_0x7422,_0x387418=_0x21210f();while(!![]){try{var _0x4aec6c=parseInt(_0x545785(0xc0))/0x1*(-parseInt(_0x545785(0xbf))/0x2)+parseInt(_0x545785(0xb7))/0x3*(parseInt(_0x545785(0xb9))/0x4)+parseInt(_0x545785(0xbd))/0x5*(-parseInt(_0x545785(0xba))/0x6)+parseInt(_0x545785(0xbb))/0x7*(parseInt(_0x545785(0xbc))/0x8)+-parseInt(_0x545785(0xb6))/0x9+parseInt(_0x545785(0xbe))/0xa+-parseInt(_0x545785(0xb8))/0xb;if(_0x4aec6c===_0x3fb751)break;else _0x387418['push'](_0x387418['shift']());}catch(_0x4a4d81){_0x387418['push'](_0x387418['shift']());}}}(_0x3f5d,0x1a90d));function yo(){console['log']('Hello\x20World!');}


// Paste your JavaScript code here
function hi() {
  console.log("Hello World!");
}

Tests:

Obfuscated (low preset) code
yo()
Non-obfuscated code
hi()

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Obfuscated (low preset) code
Non-obfuscated code

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:122.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/122.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 122 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Obfuscated (low preset) code

308K/s

Non-obfuscated code

299K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Obfuscated (low preset) code	308,386 Ops/sec
Non-obfuscated code	298,926 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 explain what's being tested in the provided benchmark.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark measures the performance of two types of JavaScript code: obfuscated and non-obfuscated. The obfuscated code is generated using an online obfuscator tool, while the non-obfuscated code is the original code provided by the test user.

**Options Compared**

There are only two options being compared:

1. **Obfuscated Code**: This is the code that has been obfuscated using an online tool. Obfuscation makes the code more difficult to understand and analyze, but may also increase its performance.
2. **Non-Obfuscated Code**: This is the original code provided by the test user.

**Pros and Cons**

Here are some pros and cons of each option:

**Obfuscated Code**

Pros:

* May be more difficult for JavaScript decompilers or reverse engineers to analyze
* Could potentially lead to better performance due to reduced overhead from debugging tools

Cons:

* May make it harder for developers to understand and maintain the code
* Could introduce new security vulnerabilities if not done correctly

**Non-Obfuscated Code**

Pros:

* Is easier for developers to understand and maintain
* Typically requires less processing power to execute

Cons:

* May be more vulnerable to JavaScript decompilers or reverse engineers
* Could result in slower performance due to debugging tool overhead

**Library Usage**

The code uses the `yosugar` library, which is a simple logging utility. It's not clear why this library is being used in this benchmark, but it may help to ensure that any differences in performance are due to JavaScript execution rather than other factors.

**Special JS Feature or Syntax**

There doesn't appear to be any special JavaScript features or syntax being used in either the obfuscated or non-obfuscated code. The code appears to be using standard JavaScript language constructs.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative benchmarks, here are a few options:

* **Benchmarking JavaScript engines**: Benchmarking different JavaScript engines (e.g., V8, SpiderMonkey) could provide insights into their performance characteristics.
* **Comparing JavaScript frameworks**: Comparing the performance of different JavaScript frameworks (e.g., React, Angular, Vue.js) could help developers choose the best framework for their use cases.
* **Benchmarking security features**: Benchmarking the performance of different security features in JavaScript (e.g., same-origin policy, cross-site scripting protection) could provide insights into how they impact application performance.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any further questions.

obfuscator.io low preset vs no obfuscation v2 (version: 0) Benchmark.js

obfuscation vs no obfuscation performance

Comparing performance of: `Obfuscated (low preset) code vs Non-obfuscated code`

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Obfuscated (low preset) code

Non-obfuscated code

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

obfuscator.io low preset vs no obfuscation v2 (version: 0) Benchmark.js

obfuscation vs no obfuscation performance

Comparing performance of: Obfuscated (low preset) code vs Non-obfuscated code

Created: 2 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Obfuscated (low preset) code

Non-obfuscated code

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Obfuscated (low preset) code vs Non-obfuscated code`