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

Test name	Executions per second
Array#includes()	86357992.0 Ops/sec
Set#has()	219870448.0 Ops/sec
Object.hasOwn()	116058432.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

set.has vs. array.includes 2
set.has vs. array.includes vs obj[key] vs map.get
Array.includes vs. Object key lookup vs. Set.has
has vs includes
has vs includess
array.includes vs set.has vs object property
set.has vs object key lookup vs array includes
array includes vs object key lookup vs Set.has
set.has vs. array.includes vs plain object (100 000)

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

Jump to the latest result

Array#includes()

Set#has()

Object.hasOwn()

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A