Benchmark: charAt vs codePointAt actually using unicode chars

Script Preparation code:

var str = "some str😀ing heresome string he😀resome string heresome st😀ring heresome str😀ing heresome 😀string heresome string heres😀ome string heresome string heresome stri😀g heresome string heresome string heresome str😀ing heresome string heresome string heresome string her😀😀😀😀esome string heresome string here😀some string here"

Tests:

charAt
str.charAt(20)
codePointAt
str.codePointAt(20)

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
charAt
codePointAt

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 2 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/145.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 145 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
charAt	267951072.0 Ops/sec
codePointAt	255252304.0 Ops/sec

Related benchmarks:

charCodeAt vs []
charCodeAt vs codePointAt
charCodeAt vs brackets
charCodeAt vs codePointAt actually using unicode chars
string.charCodeAt(index) vs string[index].charCodeAt()
string.charCodeAt(index) vs string[index].charCodeAt() vs +string[index]
dshkshkldsh
rtu5efdhju52y4rsgd
charCodeAt vs [] comparison

charAt vs codePointAt actually using unicode chars (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: charAt vs codePointAt

Created: 2 months ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

charAt

codePointAt

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A