Benchmark: Lodash vs. Ramda vs. VanillaJS

Lodash vs. Ramda vs. VanillaJS (version: 7)

Compares performance on the same task using Lodash vs two styles of Ramda vs two styles of "native" Javascript. In all cases the task is pulling "counter" property from each item in an array, filtering out odd items, squaring them, then returning those squared values that have less than two digits. Comparing performance of: Lodash funcional style (idiomatic) vs Lodash funcional style (performance optimized with spread) vs Ramda without relying on currying or composition vs Ramda with currying and composition vs Ramda with transducers vs VanillaJS funcional style (idiomatic) vs VanillaJS funcional style (performance optimized with spread) vs VanillaJS procedural.

Comparing performance of: `Lodash funcional style (idiomatic) vs Lodash functional style (performance optimized with spread) vs Ramda without relying on currying or composition vs Ramda with currying and composition vs Ramda with transducers vs VanillaJS funcional style (idiomatic) vs VanillaJS functional style (performance optimized with spread) vs VanillaJS procedural`

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/ramda/0.27.0/ramda.min.js"></script>
<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
     data.push({ counter: i });
}

function isOdd(num) {
  return num % 2 === 1;
}

function square(num) {
  return num * num;
}

function lessThanThreeDigits(num) {
  return num.toString().length < 3;
}

var expected = data.map(o => o.counter).filter(isOdd).map(square).filter(lessThanThreeDigits);

Tests:

Lodash funcional style (idiomatic)
var result = _.chain(data) .map('counter') .filter(isOdd) .map(square) .filter(lessThanThreeDigits) .value();
Lodash functional style (performance optimized with spread)
var result = _.reduce(data, function(acc, d) { var c = d.counter; return (isOdd(c) && lessThanThreeDigits(square(c))) ? [...acc, square(c)] : acc; }, []);
Ramda without relying on currying or composition
var result = R.filter(lessThanThreeDigits, R.map(square, R.filter(isOdd, R.pluck('counter', data))));
Ramda with currying and composition
var result = R.pipe( R.pluck('counter'), R.filter(isOdd), R.map(square), R.filter(lessThanThreeDigits) )(data);
Ramda with transducers
const xf = R.compose( R.map(R.prop('counter')), R.filter(isOdd), R.map(square), R.filter(lessThanThreeDigits) ); const result = R.transduce(xf, R.flip(R.append), [], data);
VanillaJS funcional style (idiomatic)
var result = data.map(o => o.counter).filter(isOdd).map(square).filter(lessThanThreeDigits);
VanillaJS functional style (performance optimized with spread)
var result = data.reduce((acc, d) => { var c = d.counter; return (isOdd(c) && lessThanThreeDigits(square(c))) ? [...acc, square(c)] : acc; }, []);
VanillaJS procedural
var result = new Array(); for (var i = 0; i < data.length; i++) { var c = data[i].counter; if (isOdd(c)) { var r = square(c); if (lessThanThreeDigits(r)) { result.push(r); } } }

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 7 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 7 runs

VanillaJS procedural

7K/s

Lodash funcional style (idiomatic)

3K/s

VanillaJS funcional style (idiomatic)

3K/s

Ramda without relying on currying or composition

881/s

Ramda with currying and composition

851/s

Fastest: VanillaJS procedural (7.7x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ VanillaJS procedural: 6,536 ops/sec
• Lodash funcional style (idiomatic): 2,909 ops/sec
• VanillaJS funcional style (idiomatic): 2,695 ops/sec
• Ramda without relying on currying or composition: 881 ops/sec
• Ramda with currying and composition: 851 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 funcional style (idiomatic)
Lodash functional style (performance optimized with spread)
Ramda without relying on currying or composition
Ramda with currying and composition
Ramda with transducers
VanillaJS funcional style (idiomatic)
VanillaJS functional style (performance optimized with spread)
VanillaJS procedural

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/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 132 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

VanillaJS procedural

6K/s

VanillaJS functional style (performance optimized with spread)

6K/s

Lodash functional style (performance optimized with spread)

5K/s

Lodash funcional style (idiomatic)

3K/s

VanillaJS funcional style (idiomatic)

3K/s

Ramda without relying on currying or composition

881/s

Ramda with currying and composition

865/s

Ramda with transducers

759/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ VanillaJS procedural	6,314 Ops/sec
VanillaJS functional style (performance optimized with spread)	5,908 Ops/sec
Lodash functional style (performance optimized with spread)	5,210 Ops/sec
Lodash funcional style (idiomatic)	2,907 Ops/sec
VanillaJS funcional style (idiomatic)	2,703 Ops/sec
Ramda without relying on currying or composition	881 Ops/sec
Ramda with currying and composition	865 Ops/sec
Ramda with transducers	759 Ops/sec

Lodash vs. Ramda vs. VanillaJS (version: 7)

Created: one year ago by: Registered User

Go to the latest result

Lodash funcional style (idiomatic)

Lodash functional style (performance optimized with spread)

Ramda without relying on currying or composition

Ramda with currying and composition

Ramda with transducers

VanillaJS funcional style (idiomatic)

VanillaJS functional style (performance optimized with spread)

VanillaJS procedural

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 7 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 7 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Related benchmarks