Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
Comparing response.json() and JSON.parse(response.text())
(version: 1)
Comparing performance of:
response.json() vs JSON.parse()
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
Tests:
response.json()
const showResult = result => console.log(result); const url = "https://www.googleapis.com/discovery/v1/apis"; fetch(url) .then((response) => response.json()) .then(showResult)
JSON.parse()
const showResult = result => console.log(result); const url = "https://www.googleapis.com/discovery/v1/apis"; fetch(url) .then((response) => response.text()) .then((text) => JSON.parse(text)) .then(showResult)
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
response.json()
JSON.parse()
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/135.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 135 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=603636" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
response.json()
11K/s
JSON.parse()
11K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
response.json()
10,919 Ops/sec
JSON.parse()
10,570 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
gpt-4o-mini
, generated one year ago):
The benchmark in question compares two different methods of handling JSON data received from a network response in JavaScript: using `response.json()` versus using `JSON.parse(response.text())`. ### Test Options 1. **response.json()** - This method is part of the Fetch API and is designed to parse the response body to JSON. It returns a promise that resolves with the result of the parsing. - **Pros**: - Simpler and cleaner syntax. - Automatically handles the conversion from JSON string to JavaScript object. - Generally more efficient as it operates as a part of the Fetch API's built-in methods. - **Cons**: - Limited to response objects that contain JSON-formatted data. If the response is not JSON, it will throw an error. 2. **JSON.parse(response.text())** - In this approach, the response is first converted to text using `response.text()` and is then parsed using `JSON.parse()`. - **Pros**: - Provides flexibility if you need the raw text for other operations before parsing. - Works with any type of textual data, not just JSON. - **Cons**: - More verbose and potentially less efficient because it involves two separate operations: converting the response to text and then parsing it. - More room for error if the response is not valid JSON, resulting in compatibility issues with malformed JSON. ### Library and Features This benchmark does not involve the use of external libraries but utilizes native JavaScript features, specifically the Fetch API and the built-in JSON methods. - **Fetch API**: A modern API for making network requests, which returns promises. It is used here to retrieve data from a given URL. - **Promise Handling**: Both test cases utilize JavaScript promises to handle asynchronous operations, allowing the code to wait for the network response without blocking the main thread. ### Alternatives In addition to the provided methods, other alternatives could be considered for handling JSON responses: 1. **Axios**: A popular library for making HTTP requests that automatically handles response parsing. It can simplify error handling and support request cancellation. 2. **jQuery Ajax**: Older, but still widely used; jQuery provides methods like `$.getJSON()` which inherently parse JSON responses while managing the network request. 3. **XMLHttpRequest**: The traditional method for sending requests, which can also fetch data and parse JSON, albeit with more verbose code and callback management. In conclusion, the benchmark highlights a comparison between two approaches to JSON parsing in JavaScript, informing developers about their respective efficiencies and use cases. The findings suggest that using `response.json()` is more efficient and concise for handling JSON responses compared to explicitly fetching the response as text and parsing it afterward.
Related benchmarks
XHR vs fetch
axios vs node-fetch
axios vs fetch
JSON parse vs response.json
XHR vs fetch without JSON parsing
XHR (responseType: json) vs fetch
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?