Toggle navigation
MeasureThat
.net
Create a benchmark
Tools
Feedback
FAQ
Register
Log In
checked
(version: 1)
Comparing performance of:
is vs prop
Created:
one year ago
by:
Guest
Go to the latest result
HTML Preparation code:
<input type="checkbox"/> <script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/jquery/3.7.1/jquery.js'></script>
Tests:
is
$('input').is(':checked');
prop
$('input').prop('checked');
Rendered benchmark preparation results:
Suite status:
<idle, ready to run>
Run tests (2)
Previous results
Fork
Test case name
Result
is
prop
Fastest:
N/A
Slowest:
N/A
Latest run results:
Run details:
(Test run date:
one year ago
)
User agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/134.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Browser/OS:
Chrome 134 on Mac OS X 10.15.7
View result in a separate tab
Embed
Embed Benchmark Result
<iframe src="https://measurethat.net/Embed?id=599583" width="100%" height="500px"></iframe>
prop
463K/s
is
242K/s
View exact numbers
Test name
Executions per second
✓
prop
463,366 Ops/sec
is
242,212 Ops/sec
Autogenerated LLM Summary
(model
gpt-4o-mini
, generated one year ago):
The benchmark defined in the provided JSON compares two different methods of checking whether a checkbox input is selected in a web page using jQuery. The specific comparisons are as follows: ### Test Options 1. **`$('input').is(':checked');`** - This method uses the jQuery `is()` function, which checks the current state of the input element against a selector (`:checked` in this case). - **Test Name:** `is` 2. **`$('input').prop('checked');`** - This approach utilizes the `prop()` method in jQuery, which retrieves the value of a specified property from the first element in the jQuery object. Here, it checks the `checked` property of the input. - **Test Name:** `prop` ### Pros and Cons #### `is(':checked')` - **Pros:** - More intuitive for users familiar with CSS selectors. - Generally easier to read and understand for those who might not be deeply versed in JavaScript. - **Cons:** - Can be slightly slower than using `prop()` because it involves matching against a selector, which introduces overhead. - May be less direct, as it involves a check that could require more computation under the hood. #### `prop('checked')` - **Pros:** - Tends to be more efficient and faster because it directly accesses the property of the underlying DOM element without the overhead of selector matching. - Provides a straightforward approach as it's directly returning the `checked` status of the input element. - **Cons:** - Might be less intuitive for those used to working with CSS selectors. - Slightly less readable for non-technical audiences as it uses a more programmatic approach. ### Other Considerations In terms of performance, the benchmark results show a significant difference in executions per second: - The `prop` test achieved **463,366.1875 executions per second**. - The `is` test recorded **242,211.578125 executions per second**. This indicates that `prop()` is more efficient for checking the checked state of a checkbox input. This performance gap can become more pronounced as the number of elements increases, which is relevant for applications where the state of numerous checkboxes is affected. ### Other Alternatives While the benchmark focuses on jQuery's methods, there are indeed native JavaScript alternatives: - **Using Vanilla JavaScript:** - `document.querySelector('input[type="checkbox"]').checked;` - This would directly query the checkbox and check its `checked` property. It would be similar in performance to `prop()`, as it directly accesses the underlying property without selector overhead. Each method and approach has its own use case. In a simpler scenario, if jQuery is already being utilized in a project, sticking with jQuery's methods will enhance code consistency. However, for performance-critical applications, using native JavaScript methods like `querySelector` can yield better results.
Related benchmarks
Lodash.js vs Native undefined
predefined values to check
Comments
Confirm delete:
Do you really want to delete benchmark?