Benchmark: Lodash cloneDeep VS spread operator

HTML Preparation code:

<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>

Script Preparation code:

var MyObject = {
  description: 'a',
  myNumber: 123456789,
  myBoolean: true,
};

var myCopy = null;

Tests:

Lodash cloneDeep
myCopy = _.cloneDeep(MyObject);
Spread operator
myCopy = {...MyObject};

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 137 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 125 runs

Spread operator

8.2M/s

Lodash cloneDeep

1.8M/s

Fastest: Spread operator (4.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Spread operator: 8,247,698 ops/sec
• Lodash cloneDeep: 1,805,877 ops/sec

Safari 6 runs

Spread operator

9.3M/s

Lodash cloneDeep

3.4M/s

Fastest: Spread operator (2.7x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Spread operator: 9,300,321 ops/sec
• Lodash cloneDeep: 3,391,744 ops/sec

Firefox 6 runs

Spread operator

24.0M/s

Lodash cloneDeep

2.8M/s

Fastest: Spread operator (8.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Spread operator: 23,999,256 ops/sec
• Lodash cloneDeep: 2,835,841 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
Lodash cloneDeep
Spread operator

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/145.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 145 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Spread operator

11.8M/s

Lodash cloneDeep

3.1M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Spread operator	11,846,460 Ops/sec
Lodash cloneDeep	3,066,682 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the benchmark and explain what's being tested.

**Benchmark Purpose:**
The purpose of this benchmark is to compare the performance of two methods for creating a deep copy of an object in JavaScript: Lodash's `cloneDeep` function and the spread operator (`...`).

**Test Cases:**

1. **Lodash cloneDeep**: This test case uses the `cloneDeep` function from the Lodash library, which is designed to create a deep copy of an object, including nested objects and arrays.
2. **Spread Operator**: This test case uses the spread operator (`...`) to create a new object by copying the properties of the original object.

**Library:**
The Lodash library is used in the first test case to provide the `cloneDeep` function.

**Special JS Features/Syntax:**
There are no special JavaScript features or syntaxes being tested in this benchmark, aside from the use of the spread operator which is a modern JavaScript feature.

**Pros and Cons:**

* **Lodash cloneDeep**: Pros:
	+ Provides a robust way to create deep copies of objects.
	+ Handles complex nested structures out of the box.
Cons:
	+ Requires including an additional library (Lodash).
	+ May have performance overhead due to the library's functionality.
* **Spread Operator**: Pros:
	+ Is a built-in JavaScript feature, so no additional libraries are needed.
	+ Can be efficient for simple object copies.
Cons:
	+ May not work correctly with complex nested structures or arrays.
	+ Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully.

**Other Considerations:**

* **Performance:** The benchmark's focus on performance might make it less relevant for developers who prioritize code readability and maintainability over speed.
* **Library Overhead:** Including a library like Lodash can introduce overhead, which may affect the performance of the `cloneDeep` function compared to a native spread operator implementation.

**Alternatives:**

1. **Native Spread Operator Implementation:** Some modern JavaScript engines have implemented efficient native implementations for the spread operator. This could potentially outperform the Lodash implementation.
2. **Manual Deep Copying:** Developers can implement their own manual deep copying functions using recursion or iterative approaches. While this might be more error-prone, it avoids relying on external libraries.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not provide the same level of functionality and robustness as Lodash's `cloneDeep` function, but they could offer performance advantages or be more suitable for specific use cases.

Lodash cloneDeep VS spread operator (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Lodash cloneDeep vs Spread operator`

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Spread operator

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 137 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 125 runs

Safari 6 runs

Firefox 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Lodash cloneDeep VS spread operator (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Lodash cloneDeep vs Spread operator

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Lodash cloneDeep

Spread operator

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 137 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 125 runs

Safari 6 runs

Firefox 6 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated one year ago):

Related benchmarks

Comparing performance of: `Lodash cloneDeep vs Spread operator`