Benchmark: Underscore vs Lodash vs vanilla: 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;
var b = 0;
var c = 3.14;
var d = 1e-10;

Tests:

Underscore
underscore.isNaN(a); underscore.isNaN(b); underscore.isNaN(c); underscore.isNaN(d)
Lodash
lodash.isNaN(a); lodash.isNaN(b); lodash.isNaN(c); lodash.isNaN(d)
Native JS
Number.isNaN(a); Number.isNaN(b); Number.isNaN(c); Number.isNaN(d)

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 month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:136.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/136.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 136 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Underscore	1644466.2 Ops/sec
Lodash	468883936.0 Ops/sec
Native JS	471998368.0 Ops/sec

Underscore vs Lodash vs vanilla: isNaN (version: 1)

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

Comparing performance of: Underscore vs Lodash vs Native JS

Created: 2 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Underscore

Lodash

Native JS

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A