Benchmark: .endsWith vs includes

Script Preparation code:

var string = 'car';
var stringToCheck = 'car';

var result = null;

Tests:

.endsWith
result = stringToCheck.endsWith(string);
.includes
result = stringToCheck.includes(string);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 126 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 108 runs

.endsWith

8.8M/s

.includes

8.5M/s

View exact numbers

✓ .endsWith: 8,787,560 ops/sec
• .includes: 8,531,696 ops/sec

Firefox 18 runs

.includes

356.1M/s

.endsWith

352.0M/s

View exact numbers

✓ .includes: 356,083,456 ops/sec
• .endsWith: 352,043,232 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
.endsWith
.includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 8 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/150.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 150 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

.includes

20.2M/s

.endsWith

20.0M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ .includes	20,172,254 Ops/sec
.endsWith	20,041,078 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's dive into the world of JavaScript microbenchmarks.

**What is being tested?**

The provided JSON represents a benchmark test case that compares the performance of two string methods: `.endsWith()` and `.includes()`. The benchmark tests how fast these two methods can be used to check if a given string ends with or includes another string.

**Options compared:**

There are only two options being compared:

1. `.endsWith(string)`: This method checks if the current string ends with the provided `string`.
2. `.includes(string)`: This method checks if the current string includes the provided `string`.

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* `.endsWith()`: This method is more efficient when checking for a specific suffix, as it can stop searching once it finds the desired character. However, it may be slower for longer strings or when searching for a prefix.
* `.includes()`: This method scans the entire string to check if the provided `string` is present anywhere in the current string. It's generally slower than `.endsWith()` but has the advantage of being more inclusive (i.e., checking for any occurrence, not just the end).

**Library and purpose:**

There is no specific library mentioned in this benchmark test case. However, both methods are built-in JavaScript functions.

**Special JS feature or syntax: None**

There's nothing special about the code that would require any advanced JavaScript features or syntax beyond basic string manipulation.

**Other alternatives:**

If you need to optimize string comparisons, there might be alternative approaches:

* Use a regular expression with the `g` flag to search for a pattern in a string.
* Utilize `String.prototype.startsWith()` and `String.prototype.endsWith()` (in that order) to check if a string starts or ends with a specific value.

Keep in mind that these alternatives might not directly compare to `.endsWith()` and `.includes()`, but they can provide different optimization paths for specific use cases.

**Benchmark preparation code:**

The provided script preparation code creates two variables:

* `string`: A constant string variable set to `'car'`.
* `stringToCheck`: Another constant string variable set to `'car'`.

This setup is intentionally simple to focus on the performance differences between `.endsWith()` and `.includes()`. In real-world scenarios, you might want to use more complex strings or include additional variables to test different edge cases.

Now that we've dissected the benchmark, it's clear that measuring performance can be a fascinating topic in software engineering. By comparing basic methods like `.endsWith()` and `.includes()`, we can gain insights into how these functions execute and optimize for real-world use cases.

.endsWith vs includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `.endsWith vs .includes`

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

.endsWith

.includes

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 126 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 108 runs

Firefox 18 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

.endsWith vs includes (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: .endsWith vs .includes

Created: 7 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

.endsWith

.includes

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 126 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 108 runs

Firefox 18 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: `.endsWith vs .includes`