Benchmark: _.includes vs includes()

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = ['mustafa', 'kemal', 'atatürk'];

Tests:

Lodash
_.includes(data, 'kemal');
Native
data.includes('kemal');

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 50 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 50 runs

Native

30.0M/s

Lodash

8.2M/s

Fastest: Native (3.7x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Native: 30,017,980 ops/sec
• Lodash: 8,154,576 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
Lodash
Native

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 7 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/144.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 144 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Native

181.8M/s

Lodash

46.0M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Native	181,779,312 Ops/sec
Lodash	45,968,348 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down what's being tested and the results.

**What is being tested?**

The benchmark compares two approaches to checking if an element exists in an array:

1. Using the `includes()` method, which is a native JavaScript function (this approach is referred to as "Native" in the test cases).
2. Using the `_includes()` function from the Lodash library.

**What options are compared?**

We're comparing two different implementations of the `includes` function:

* The native `includes()` method built into modern browsers.
* The `_includes()` function provided by the Lodash library, a popular utility library for JavaScript.

**Pros and cons of each approach:**

Native (`includes()`):

* Pros:
	+ Built-in to most modern browsers, so it's always available without needing an external library.
	+ Typically faster since it's native code.
* Cons:
	+ Not available in older browsers (before ECMAScript 2015, also known as ES6).
	+ May have slightly different behavior or edge cases compared to Lodash.

Lodash (`_includes()`):

* Pros:
	+ Backwards compatible with older browsers that don't support `includes()`.
	+ Well-tested and widely used in the JavaScript community.
* Cons:
	+ Adds an external library dependency, which can increase bundle size and complexity.
	+ May be slightly slower than the native implementation due to the overhead of a function call.

**Library: Lodash**

Lodash is a popular utility library for JavaScript that provides a wide range of functions for tasks like array manipulation, string formatting, and more. In this case, we're using the `_includes()` function from Lodash to perform the same task as the native `includes()` method.

**JavaScript feature or syntax: None**

There's no special JavaScript feature or syntax being used in this benchmark. The code is straightforward and uses standard JavaScript methods and functions.

**Other alternatives:**

If you need to check if an element exists in an array across different browsers, you could consider using:

* A polyfill for the `includes()` method, which would provide a compatible implementation for older browsers.
* Other utility libraries like Underscore.js or Ramda.js, which also offer similar functions for array manipulation.

However, for most modern use cases, the native `includes()` method is a good choice, and Lodash's `_includes()` function can be used as a fallback for compatibility with older browsers.

_.includes vs includes() (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Lodash vs Native`

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash

Native

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 50 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 50 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

_.includes vs includes() (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Lodash vs Native

Created: 8 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash

Native

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 50 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 50 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.1:latest, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Lodash vs Native`