Benchmark: Underscore vs Lodash: isNaN

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  window.lodash = _;
  _ = null;
</script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.9.1/underscore-min.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  window.underscore = _;
  _ = null;
</script>

Script Preparation code:

var a = NaN;

Tests:

Underscore
underscore.isNaN(a);
Lodash
lodash.isNaN(a);
Native JS
Number.isNaN(NaN)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Underscore
Lodash
Native JS

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/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Underscore	45778088.0 Ops/sec
Lodash	109382328.0 Ops/sec
Native JS	138260944.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

Underscore vs Lodash: isNaN (version: 1)

Compare Underscore vs Lodash vs Native JS isNaN. Which is faster?

Comparing performance of: Underscore vs Lodash vs Native JS

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Underscore

Lodash

Native JS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A