Benchmark: Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. includes

Script Preparation code:

var hasZero = [];
var withoutZero = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10000; i++) {
  hasZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000));
  withoutZero.push(Math.floor(Math.random() * 1000) + 1)
}

Tests:

Array.some
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.some(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.some(v => v === 0);
Array.filter
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.filter(v => v === 0) : withoutZero.filter(v => v === 0);
Array.indexOf
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.indexOf(0) > -1 : withoutZero.indexOf(0) > -1;
Array.includes
var tempResult = !!Math.round(Math.random()) ? hasZero.includes(0) : withoutZero.includes(0);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 688 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 545 runs

Array.includes

1.6M/s

Array.indexOf

1.4M/s

Array.some

221K/s

Array.filter

49K/s

Fastest: Array.includes (32.3x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.includes: 1,589,509 ops/sec
• Array.indexOf: 1,399,486 ops/sec
• Array.some: 221,405 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 49,237 ops/sec

Firefox 79 runs

Array.includes

240K/s

Array.indexOf

234K/s

Array.some

31K/s

Array.filter

17K/s

Fastest: Array.includes (14.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.includes: 239,592 ops/sec
• Array.indexOf: 234,046 ops/sec
• Array.some: 31,192 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 16,863 ops/sec

Safari 17 runs

Array.indexOf

5.2M/s

Array.includes

178K/s

Array.some

168K/s

Array.filter

60K/s

Fastest: Array.indexOf (86.0x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.indexOf: 5,184,368 ops/sec
• Array.includes: 178,116 ops/sec
• Array.some: 167,867 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 60,304 ops/sec

Other 7 runs

Array.includes

1.5M/s

Array.indexOf

1.2M/s

Array.some

303K/s

Array.filter

63K/s

Fastest: Array.includes (23.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.includes: 1,488,353 ops/sec
• Array.indexOf: 1,211,628 ops/sec
• Array.some: 302,512 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 63,130 ops/sec

Mobile Results:

Chrome 25 runs

Array.indexOf

749K/s

Array.includes

733K/s

Array.some

98K/s

Array.filter

25K/s

Fastest: Array.indexOf (30.4x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.indexOf: 748,905 ops/sec
• Array.includes: 733,384 ops/sec
• Array.some: 98,463 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 24,604 ops/sec

Safari 10 runs

Array.indexOf

12.5M/s

Array.includes

203K/s

Array.some

150K/s

Array.filter

74K/s

Fastest: Array.indexOf (169.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.indexOf: 12,500,802 ops/sec
• Array.includes: 202,927 ops/sec
• Array.some: 150,300 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 73,713 ops/sec

Firefox 5 runs

Array.indexOf

161K/s

Array.includes

159K/s

Array.some

16K/s

Array.filter

8K/s

Fastest: Array.indexOf (18.9x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.indexOf: 160,612 ops/sec
• Array.includes: 158,584 ops/sec
• Array.some: 16,489 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 8,492 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
Array.some
Array.filter
Array.indexOf
Array.includes

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 21 days ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/151.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 151 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Array.indexOf

3.0M/s

Array.includes

3.0M/s

Array.some

387K/s

Array.filter

121K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Array.indexOf	3,012,920 Ops/sec
Array.includes	3,003,858 Ops/sec
Array.some	386,732 Ops/sec
Array.filter	121,052 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.

The provided JSON represents a benchmark that tests four different approaches for checking if an array contains a specific value: `some()`, `filter()`, `indexOf()`, and `includes()`.

**What is tested on the provided json?**

In this benchmark, we have two arrays:

1. `hasZero`: an array containing 10,000 random integers between 0 and 999.
2. `withoutZero`: an array containing 10,000 random integers between 0 and 999, but with one additional value (1000).

The benchmark checks the performance of each approach on both arrays:

* `some()`: returns `true` if at least one element in the array satisfies the condition.
* `filter()`: returns a new array containing only the elements that satisfy the condition.
* `indexOf()`: returns the index of the first occurrence of the specified value, or -1 if not found.
* `includes()`: returns `true` if the array contains the specified value.

**Options compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of each approach on the two arrays:

| Approach | Array | Method |
| --- | --- | --- |
| `some()` | `hasZero`, `withoutZero` | Iterates through the array, checking for presence |
| `filter()` | `hasZero`, `withoutZero` | Creates a new array with elements that satisfy the condition |
| `indexOf()` | `hasZero`, `withoutZero` | Searches for the specified value in the array |
| `includes()` | `hasZero`, `withoutZero` | Checks if the array contains the specified value |

**Pros and Cons**

Here's a brief summary of the pros and cons of each approach:

* `some()`: Pros:
	+ Simple to implement
	+ Fast for small arrays
	+ Suitable for finding any element, not just exact matches
* Cons:
	+ Can be slower than other methods for large arrays
	+ Returns true if any element satisfies the condition, regardless of order
* `filter()`: Pros:
	+ Creates a new array with filtered elements, which can be useful for further processing
	+ Suitable for finding all matching elements in the correct order
* Cons:
	+ Requires creating a new array, which can be memory-intensive
	+ Slower than other methods for large arrays
* `indexOf()`: Pros:
	+ Returns the index of the first occurrence, making it suitable for finding a specific element
	+ Can be faster than other methods for exact matches
* Cons:
	+ May return -1 if the value is not found
	+ Not suitable for finding any element that satisfies the condition
* `includes()`: Pros:
	+ Fast and efficient for checking presence
	+ Suitable for both small and large arrays
* Cons:
	+ Returns true or false, but not an index

**Other considerations**

* `some()` and `filter()` are often used together to implement more complex checks.
* `indexOf()` is commonly used with `slice()` or `substring()` to extract a specific part of the array.

**Library usage**

In this benchmark, no libraries are explicitly mentioned. However, it's worth noting that some JavaScript engines may use libraries like V8 (Chrome) or SpiderMonkey (Firefox) under the hood.

**Special JS features or syntax**

There are no special JS features or syntax used in this benchmark.

**Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative approaches to these methods, here are a few options:

* For `some()` and `filter()`, you can also use `every()` and `map()` respectively.
* For `indexOf()`, you can use `findIndex()` as an alternative.
* For `includes()`, you can use `reduce()` or other accumulation-based approaches to implement a custom check.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may have different performance characteristics, and some might be more suitable for your specific use case.

Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. includes (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: `Array.some vs Array.filter vs Array.indexOf vs Array.includes`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter

Array.indexOf

Array.includes

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 688 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 545 runs

Firefox 79 runs

Safari 17 runs

Other 7 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 25 runs

Safari 10 runs

Firefox 5 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. includes (version: 0) Benchmark.js

Comparing performance of: Array.some vs Array.filter vs Array.indexOf vs Array.includes

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter

Array.indexOf

Array.includes

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 688 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 545 runs

Firefox 79 runs

Safari 17 runs

Other 7 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 25 runs

Safari 10 runs

Firefox 5 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: `Array.some vs Array.filter vs Array.indexOf vs Array.includes`