Benchmark: RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match with multiple searches

Script Preparation code:

var string = "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.";
var searches = ['ipsum', 'tempor', 'foobar', 'dolore', 'est']
var regex = new RegExp(searches.join("|"));

Tests:

RegEx.test
regex.test(string);
String.includes
for (const search of searches) { if (string.includes(search)) break; }
String.match
string.match(regex);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
RegEx.test
String.includes
String.match

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 4 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/605.1.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/26.2 Safari/605.1.15

Browser/OS: Safari 26 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
RegEx.test	66147424.0 Ops/sec
String.includes	65053000.0 Ops/sec
String.match	37931960.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

RegEx.test vs. String.includes vs. String.match with multiple searches (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: RegEx.test vs String.includes vs String.match

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

RegEx.test

String.includes

String.match

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A