Benchmark: for vs foreach vs some vs for..of vs for with cached length

Script Preparation code:

var array = new Array(100);

Tests:

for
for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i += 1) { array[i]; }
foreach
array.forEach(function(i) { array[i]; });
some
array.some(function(i) { array[i]; });
for..of
for (var i of array) { array[i]; }
for with cached length
for (var i = 0, end = array.length; i < end; i += 1) { array[i]; }

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
for
foreach
some
for..of
for with cached length

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:140.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/140.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 140 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

for

20.7M/s

for with cached length

19.9M/s

some

12.6M/s

foreach

7.5M/s

for..of

1.4M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ for	20,698,280 Ops/sec
for with cached length	19,945,734 Ops/sec
some	12,567,482 Ops/sec
foreach	7,517,727 Ops/sec
for..of	1,380,676 Ops/sec

for vs foreach vs some vs for..of vs for with cached length (version: 1)

Compare loop performance

Comparing performance of: `for vs foreach vs some vs for..of vs for with cached length`

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

for

foreach

some

for..of

for with cached length

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

for vs foreach vs some vs for..of vs for with cached length (version: 1)

Compare loop performance

Comparing performance of: for vs foreach vs some vs for..of vs for with cached length

Created: one year ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

for

foreach

some

for..of

for with cached length

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `for vs foreach vs some vs for..of vs for with cached length`