Map.has vs Set.has vs Array.includes 01.04.2025 (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Set.has vs Map.has vs Array.includes

Created: one year ago by: Guest
Go to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
Script Preparation code:
Tests:

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 7 community runs

Desktop Results:
Chrome 7 runs
Set.has
158.3M/s
Map.has
156.9M/s
Array.includes
64.8M/s

Fastest: Set.has (2.4x faster)

View exact numbers
  • ✓ Set.has: 158,325,312 ops/sec
  • • Map.has: 156,876,144 ops/sec
  • • Array.includes: 64,843,096 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
    Set.has
    Map.has
    Array.includes

    Fastest: N/A

    Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:
Run details: (Test run date: one year ago)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/138.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/138.0.0.0
Chrome 138 on Windows
View result in a separate tab
Map.has
87.8M/s
Set.has
86.4M/s
Array.includes
30.4M/s
View exact numbers
Test name Executions per second
✓ Map.has 87,848,448 Ops/sec
Set.has 86,434,424 Ops/sec
Array.includes 30,414,320 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks