Benchmark: Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString-

Script Preparation code:



var target = 123456789.123456789
var options = {minimumFractionDigits: 3, maximumFractionDigits: 3}
var num

var intlformat = new Intl.NumberFormat('en-US', options)

Tests:

toLocaleString
var a = target.toLocaleString('en-US', options);
Intl.NumberFormat
var a = intlformat.format(target)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
toLocaleString
Intl.NumberFormat

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:133.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/133.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 133 on Ubuntu

View result in a separate tab

Intl.NumberFormat

3.0M/s

toLocaleString

62K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Intl.NumberFormat	3,002,643 Ops/sec
toLocaleString	61,690 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The benchmark represented in the provided JSON compares two different approaches for formatting numbers in JavaScript, specifically focusing on the performance difference between `Intl.NumberFormat` and `toLocaleString`. Here's a breakdown of the components involved in this benchmark:

### Benchmark Overview

1. **Name:** `Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocaleString`
   - This benchmark is comparing the performance of the `Intl.NumberFormat` method against the `toLocaleString` method in JavaScript.

2. **Preparation Code:**
   - The preparation code initializes a target number (`123456789.123456789`) and establishes formatting options with three decimal places. It also creates an instance of `Intl.NumberFormat` for the 'en-US' locale with specified fraction digit settings, which will be used in the formatting operations.

### Individual Test Cases

1. **`toLocaleString` Test:**
   - **Benchmark Definition:** 
     ```javascript
     var a = target.toLocaleString('en-US', options);
     ```
   - **Pros:**
     - Straightforward to use for simple locale-sensitive formatting.
     - Automatically provides formatting based on the user's locale and options.
   - **Cons:**
     - Generally slower in performance compared to `Intl.NumberFormat` for repeated calls, as it does not cache the formatting instruction.
   - **Purpose:** 
     - This method directly converts the number into a locale-specific string representation, which is useful for applications requiring formatted numbers.

2. **`Intl.NumberFormat` Test:**
   - **Benchmark Definition:**
     ```javascript
     var a = intlformat.format(target);
     ```
   - **Pros:**
     - More efficient for multiple format calls since it allows for caching (creating one instance for formatting instead of recreating it each time).
     - Provides extensive options for controlling the output format (currency, percentage, etc.).
   - **Cons:**
     - May have a slightly more complex setup compared to `toLocaleString`, especially for users unaccustomed to using the `Intl` API.
   - **Purpose:** 
     - Designed to handle localization, making it suitable for applications that need to consider different regional formats and requirements.

### Benchmark Results

- The benchmark results indicate significantly higher performance for the `Intl.NumberFormat` approach, with approximately `3,002,642.75` executions per second, compared to `61,690.46` executions per second for the `toLocaleString` method. This highlights the efficiency of using `Intl.NumberFormat`, especially in scenarios where number formatting needs to be executed multiple times.

### Considerations and Alternatives

- **Considerations:**
  - Performance should be a significant factor when choosing a number formatting approach, especially in applications where formatting occurs frequently or in loops.
  - Locale and format options should be taken into account based on the target audience and specific requirements.

- **Alternatives:**
  - Custom formatting functions could be implemented for specific cases where the requirements are very unique and do not fit standard formatting options.
  - Libraries like `numeral.js` or `accounting.js` could be utilized for more complex use cases, such as financial applications, where specific number formatting is consistently needed across various formats (currency, percent).

In conclusion, for standard and efficient number formatting in JavaScript, utilizing `Intl.NumberFormat` is recommended for better performance and extensibility, while `toLocaleString` may serve well in simpler or one-off formatting needs.

Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString- (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: `toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

toLocaleString

Intl.NumberFormat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

Intl.NumberFormat vs toLocalString- (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

toLocaleString

Intl.NumberFormat

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `toLocaleString vs Intl.NumberFormat`