Benchmark: lodash vs radash 3

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/radash/12.1.0/radash.min.js" integrity="sha512-JEUqDJrck58H46FvJVzwvDWVlVEF83BkaG8/fagfTApgdo8ERV+Hqx4t7rDyFN8JGv84+r+WNoq9oZsgi5Glhw==" crossorigin="anonymous" referrerpolicy="no-referrer"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var obj = {a: {b: {c: {d: 1}}}}
var badObj = {}

Tests:

Optional
var c = obj.a == null ? undefined : obj.a.b == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : obj.a.b.c.d c == null ? 2 : c var d = badObj.a == null ? undefined : badObj.a.b == null ? undefined : badObj.a.b.c == null ? undefined : badObj.a.b.c.d d == null ? 2 : d
lodash
_.get(obj, "a.b.c.d", 2) _.get(badObj, "a.b.c.d", 2)
radash
radash.get(obj, "a.b.c.d", 2) radash.get(badObj, "a.b.c.d", 2)

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 47 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 33 runs

Optional

39.1M/s

lodash

3.1M/s

radash

1.7M/s

Fastest: Optional (23.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Optional: 39,096,232 ops/sec
• lodash: 3,051,186 ops/sec
• radash: 1,660,838 ops/sec

Safari 5 runs

Optional

3.9M/s

lodash

3.4M/s

radash

2.1M/s

Fastest: Optional (1.9x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Optional: 3,864,451 ops/sec
• lodash: 3,416,067 ops/sec
• radash: 2,074,542 ops/sec

Mobile Results:

Chrome 9 runs

Optional

3.5M/s

lodash

1.9M/s

radash

1.3M/s

Fastest: Optional (2.7x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Optional: 3,502,369 ops/sec
• lodash: 1,875,129 ops/sec
• radash: 1,289,116 ops/sec

Results show median performance across all community submissions. Run this benchmark yourself to verify on your device.

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Optional
lodash
radash

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/146.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/146.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 146 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Optional

165.9M/s

lodash

6.4M/s

radash

4.0M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Optional	165,866,176 Ops/sec
lodash	6,419,873 Ops/sec
radash	4,011,764 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 its test cases.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is comparing two JavaScript libraries, Lodash (also known as "lodash") and Radash (also known as "radash"). The benchmark definition json provides information about the script preparation code, which sets up two objects: `obj` and `badObj`. `obj` is a nested object with multiple levels of properties, while `badObj` is an empty object.

**Options Compared**

The two libraries being compared are:

1. Lodash (`_.get()`)
2. Radash (`radash.get()`)

These functions are used to access the value of a nested property in both objects. The benchmark definition provides the exact code snippets for each library, which allows users to run the same test cases with different libraries.

**Pros and Cons**

* **Lodash (.get())**:
	+ Pros: Lodash is a widely-used and well-maintained library with a large community of contributors. Its `.get()` function is optimized for performance and is often used in production code.
	+ Cons: Adding another dependency to the project, as users need to include the Lodash library in their build process.
* **Radash (radash.get())**:
	+ Pros: Radash is a lightweight alternative to Lodash, which can be beneficial for smaller projects or projects with performance constraints. Its `get()` function is also well-optimized and efficient.
	+ Cons: Smaller community compared to Lodash, which may result in fewer resources available for troubleshooting and support.

**Other Considerations**

* **ES6 Syntax**: The benchmark definition uses modern JavaScript syntax, including arrow functions (`=>`) and template literals (`\``). This means that users need to be comfortable with ES6 syntax to run the benchmark.
* **Browser Support**: The benchmark is executed in a Chrome browser (version 127), which may not cover all possible browsers or platforms.

**Libraries**

* **Lodash**: Lodash is a popular JavaScript utility library that provides a wide range of functions for tasks such as:
	+ Array manipulation
	+ Object manipulation
	+ String manipulation
	+ Function manipulation
	+ And more...
* **Radash**: Radash is a lightweight alternative to Lodash, providing similar functionality with a smaller footprint. It aims to be a faster and more efficient alternative to Lodash.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

None mentioned in the benchmark definition.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternatives to Lodash or Radash, here are some popular options:

* **Underscore.js**: Another widely-used JavaScript utility library that provides similar functionality to Lodash.
* **Lo-Dash**: A fast and efficient alternative to Lodash, with a smaller footprint.
* **Immutable.js**: A library that focuses on functional programming and immutability, providing a different approach to data manipulation.

Keep in mind that each library has its strengths and weaknesses, and the choice of which one to use depends on your specific project requirements and constraints.

lodash vs radash 3 (version: 1)

test

Comparing performance of: `Optional vs lodash vs radash`

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Optional

lodash

radash

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 47 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 33 runs

Safari 5 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 9 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

lodash vs radash 3 (version: 1)

test

Comparing performance of: Optional vs lodash vs radash

Created: 2 years ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Optional

lodash

radash

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 47 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 33 runs

Safari 5 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 9 runs

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: `Optional vs lodash vs radash`