Benchmark: Classnames vs CLSX vs Custom implementations

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/classnames/2.2.6/index.min.js'></script>
<script src='https://unpkg.com/clsx@1.1.1/dist/clsx.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var c = { a: true, b: false, c: undefined, d: "lorem-ipsum" };

Tests:

classnames
let result = window.classNames(c)
clsx
let result = window.clsx(c)
Entries, filter, map, join
function cx(...input) { return input.filter(Boolean).join(" "); } let result = cx(c)
Custom clsx
const clsx = (classes) => { const sources = [] if (classes instanceof Array) { sources.push(...classes.filter(Boolean)) } else if (typeof classes === 'object') { sources.push(...Object.entries(classes || {}).filter(([, v]) => !!v).map(([c]) => c)) } else if (classes !== false) { sources.push(classes) } return sources.join(' ') } let result = clsx(c)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
classnames
clsx
Entries, filter, map, join
Custom clsx

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/130.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 130 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

clsx

7.3M/s

Entries, filter, map, join

6.4M/s

classnames

5.8M/s

Custom clsx

4.0M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ clsx	7,289,236 Ops/sec
Entries, filter, map, join	6,399,130 Ops/sec
classnames	5,842,298 Ops/sec
Custom clsx	3,965,052 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Overview**

The benchmark is designed to compare three approaches for creating a template string with class names:

1. `classnames`
2. `clsx` (short for "Class Names")
3. A custom implementation using basic JavaScript operations (filter, map, join)

**Library Descriptions and Their Purposes**

* `classnames`: This library provides a simple way to compose multiple class names into one string. It's designed to be fast and efficient.
* `clsx` (also known as "Class Names"): Similar to `classnames`, but with some additional features like support for nullability and a more flexible API.
* The custom implementation uses basic JavaScript operations (`filter`, `map`, and `join`) without relying on any external libraries.

**Test Cases**

Each test case executes one of the above approaches, passing an object `c` as input. Here's what each approach does:

1. `classnames`: Uses the `classNames` library to create a template string from the input object.
2. `clsx`: Uses the `clsx` library to create a template string from the input object.
3. "Entries, filter, map, join": Executes the custom implementation using basic JavaScript operations (`filter`, `map`, and `join`) on the input object.

**Comparison of Approaches**

Here's a brief comparison of the three approaches:

* **Speed**: The custom implementation is likely to be the slowest due to its reliance on basic JavaScript operations. `classnames` and `clsx` are optimized for performance, making them faster than the custom implementation.
* **Code Complexity**: The custom implementation has the highest code complexity due to its use of multiple JavaScript functions. `classnames` and `clsx` have simpler APIs with fewer dependencies.
* **Flexibility**: Both `classnames` and `clsx` offer more flexibility in terms of handling edge cases, nullability, and other advanced features.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're interested in alternatives to these libraries, here are a few options:

* `classnames`: `lodash.classnames`, which is a more comprehensive version of the library with additional features.
* `clsx`: You could consider using `js-cookie` (which includes class name functionality) or creating your own custom implementation.

**Considerations**

When choosing an approach for this task, consider the following factors:

* Performance: If speed is critical, use one of the optimized libraries (`classnames` or `clsx`).
* Code Complexity: If simplicity is important, use one of the optimized libraries.
* Flexibility: If you need to handle edge cases or advanced features, choose one of the optimized libraries.

Keep in mind that this benchmark is focused on creating a template string with class names. Depending on your specific requirements, other approaches might be more suitable.

Classnames vs CLSX vs Custom implementations (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Compare CLSX vs Classnames vs an simpliest implementation of creating a template string

Comparing performance of: `classnames vs clsx vs Entries, filter, map, join vs Custom clsx`

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

classnames

clsx

Entries, filter, map, join

Custom clsx

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Classnames vs CLSX vs Custom implementations (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Compare CLSX vs Classnames vs an simpliest implementation of creating a template string

Comparing performance of: classnames vs clsx vs Entries, filter, map, join vs Custom clsx

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

classnames

clsx

Entries, filter, map, join

Custom clsx

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: `classnames vs clsx vs Entries, filter, map, join vs Custom clsx`