Benchmark: JSON.stringify vs structuredClone 2dsfasr12qe12321312331312321

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject = {
  description: 'Creates a deep copy of source, which should be an object or an array.',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
  jayson: {
    stringify: 'JSON.stringify() method converts a JavaScript value to a JSON string....',
    parse: 'JSON.parse() method parses a JSON string...'
  }
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

JSON.stringify
myCopy = JSON.stringify(MyObject);
structuredClone
myCopy = structuredClone(MyObject);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
JSON.stringify
structuredClone

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 Edg/135.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 135 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

JSON.stringify

2.2M/s

structuredClone

441K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ JSON.stringify	2,168,862 Ops/sec
structuredClone	440,605 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

The provided benchmark evaluates the performance of two JavaScript methods for creating deep copies of objects: `JSON.stringify` and `structuredClone`. Each approach serves the purpose of cloning an object, but they differ significantly in how they achieve this, the types of objects they can handle, and their performance.

### Comparison of Options

1. **JSON.stringify**:
   - **Description**: This method converts a JavaScript value (typically an object) into a JSON string. It is often followed by `JSON.parse` to reconstruct the original object.
   - **Pros**: 
     - Commonly understood and widely used.
     - Compatible with any object that can be serialized to JSON (e.g., simple objects, arrays).
   - **Cons**:
     - Can only handle objects that are serializable to JSON. This means it fails for complex data types like functions, Dates, `undefined`, and cyclic references.
     - The process involves two steps (stringifying and then parsing), which could incur performance overhead, especially for large objects.

2. **structuredClone**:
   - **Description**: This method creates a deep clone of a given object, handling many more types than JSON serialization, such as Dates, Map, Set, ArrayBuffer, and more.
   - **Pros**:
     - More versatile as it can handle a wider range of object types, including those with circular references.
     - Typically faster for deep copying complex objects since it does not require converting to a string and then parsing back.
   - **Cons**:
     - Less universally supported in older environments or older JavaScript engines compared to `JSON.stringify`. As of recent updates, `structuredClone` is generally available in modern browsers but may not be available in older environments.

### Benchmark Results
The benchmark results show the number of executions per second for each method:
- **JSON.stringify executed approximately 3,020,609.75 times per second.**
- **structuredClone executed approximately 706,589.94 times per second.**

### Performance Considerations
While `JSON.stringify` demonstrates higher execution rates in this benchmark, the choice between these methods should consider:
- The complexity of the objects you wish to clone.
- The need for compatibility with various data types. If you're only dealing with simple objects, `JSON.stringify` may be sufficient. However, for more complex cases, `structuredClone` is the more robust option despite its slower performance in this specific benchmark.

### Alternative Approaches
Other alternatives for deep copying objects in JavaScript include:
- **Lodash's `cloneDeep` Method**: A library method that provides a deep copy functionality with full support for various data types. It is well-optimized and can handle cases that `JSON.stringify` and even `structuredClone` struggle with.
- **Manual Copying**: In some scenarios, manually copying properties may be an option, though this is generally not optimal for complex objects.

In summary, both `JSON.stringify` and `structuredClone` have their strengths and weaknesses regarding deep copying, and the choice should be guided by the requirements of the specific use case.

JSON.stringify vs structuredClone 2dsfasr12qe12321312331312321 (version: 1)

JSON.stringify vs structuredClone 2dsfasr12qe12321312331312321

Comparing performance of: `JSON.stringify vs structuredClone`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

JSON.stringify

structuredClone

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

JSON.stringify vs structuredClone 2dsfasr12qe12321312331312321 (version: 1)

JSON.stringify vs structuredClone 2dsfasr12qe12321312331312321

Comparing performance of: JSON.stringify vs structuredClone

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

JSON.stringify

structuredClone

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: `JSON.stringify vs structuredClone`