Benchmark: Array#includes() vs. Set#has() vs. Object.hasOwn()

Script Preparation code:

var arr = Array.from({ length: 10 }, (_, i) => i + 1);
var a = [...arr];
var b = new Set(arr);
var c = Object.fromEntries(arr.map((v) => [v, true]));

Tests:

Array#includes()
return a.includes(9)
Set#has()
return b.has(9)
Object.hasOwn()
return Object.hasOwn(c, '9')

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Array#includes()
Set#has()
Object.hasOwn()

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 134 on Linux

View result in a separate tab

Set#has()

219.9M/s

Object.hasOwn()

116.1M/s

Array#includes()

86.4M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Set#has()	219,870,448 Ops/sec
Object.hasOwn()	116,058,432 Ops/sec
Array#includes()	86,357,992 Ops/sec

Array#includes() vs. Set#has() vs. Object.hasOwn() (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: `Array#includes() vs Set#has() vs Object.hasOwn()`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Array#includes()

Set#has()

Object.hasOwn()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Array#includes() vs. Set#has() vs. Object.hasOwn() (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Array#includes() vs Set#has() vs Object.hasOwn()

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Array#includes()

Set#has()

Object.hasOwn()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Array#includes() vs Set#has() vs Object.hasOwn()`