Benchmark: sha1-js - MeasureThat.net

HTML Preparation code:

<script src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/sjcl/1.0.6/sjcl.min.js"></script>
<script 
src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/rusha/0.8.7/rusha.js"></script>
<script
 src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/crypto-js/3.1.9-1/crypto-js.min.js"></script>
<script
 src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/forge/0.9.1/forge.min.js"></script>

Script Preparation code:

var data = new Uint32Array(1024);
  window.crypto.getRandomValues(data);
  var dataBuffer = new Uint8Array(data);
  data = String.fromCharCode.apply(null, dataBuffer);
  
  
  // src: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/SubtleCrypto/digest
  function hex(buffer) {
    var hexCodes = [];
    var view = new DataView(buffer);
    for (var i = 0; i < view.byteLength; i += 4) {
      // Using getUint32 reduces the number of iterations needed (we process 4 bytes each time)
      var value = view.getUint32(i)
      // toString(16) will give the hex representation of the number without padding
      var stringValue = value.toString(16)
      // We use concatenation and slice for padding
      var padding = '00000000'
      var paddedValue = (padding + stringValue).slice(-padding.length)
      hexCodes.push(paddedValue);
    }
  
    // Join all the hex strings into one
    return hexCodes.join("");
  }

Tests:

forge
forge.md.sha1.create().update(data).digest()
native
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-1", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) {console.log(hex(hash));});
sjcl
sjcl.hash.sha1.hash(data);
cryptojs
CryptoJS.SHA1(data);

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 19 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 19 runs

native

191K/s

forge

75K/s

cryptojs

22K/s

sjcl

0/s

View exact numbers

✓ native: 190,952 ops/sec
• forge: 74,709 ops/sec
• cryptojs: 22,425 ops/sec
• sjcl: 0 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
forge
native
sjcl
cryptojs

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:141.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/141.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 141 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

native

537K/s

forge

73K/s

cryptojs

28K/s

sjcl

0/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ native	536,836 Ops/sec
forge	73,426 Ops/sec
cryptojs	27,943 Ops/sec
sjcl	0 Ops/sec

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

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

**Overview**

MeasureThat.net is a website that allows users to create and run JavaScript microbenchmarks, comparing the performance of different libraries and implementations for various cryptographic algorithms.

**Benchmark Definition JSON Explanation**

The provided JSON defines a benchmark named "sha1-js". The script preparation code generates a random 1024-byte array using the `window.crypto.getRandomValues()` function and converts it to a hexadecimal string. The `hex` function is used to process the data and convert it into a SHA-1 hash.

**Options Compared**

The benchmark compares four different libraries/libraries-like implementations:

1. **Forge**: A JavaScript implementation of various cryptographic algorithms, including SHA-1.
2. **Native**: Uses the Web Cryptography API (W3C) to perform SHA-1 calculations directly on the browser's native cryptographic engine.
3. **Sjcl**: A small and fast library for cryptographic primitives, including SHA-1.
4. **CryptoJS**: A popular JavaScript library for cryptography, including SHA-1.

**Pros and Cons of Each Approach**

* **Forge**: Pros: Lightweight, easy to use, and well-maintained. Cons: May not be as performant as native implementations or dedicated cryptographic libraries like Sjcl or CryptoJS.
* **Native (Web Cryptography API)**: Pros: Fastest and most secure way to perform cryptographic operations on the browser. Cons: Limited availability (some older browsers may not support it).
* **Sjcl**: Pros: Small size, fast performance, and easy to use. Cons: May have limited features compared to dedicated libraries like Forge or CryptoJS.
* **CryptoJS**: Pros: Feature-rich, well-maintained, and widely used. Cons: Larger size compared to Sjcl, and may not be as performant as native implementations.

**Library Descriptions**

1. **Forge**: A JavaScript implementation of various cryptographic algorithms, including SHA-1. It provides a simple and easy-to-use API for common cryptographic tasks.
2. **Sjcl**: A small and fast library for cryptographic primitives, including SHA-1. It is designed to be lightweight and efficient while still providing robust security features.
3. **CryptoJS**: A popular JavaScript library for cryptography, including SHA-1. It provides a comprehensive set of cryptographic functions and tools for encryption, decryption, and hashing.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

The benchmark uses some specialized JavaScript features and syntax:

* `window.crypto.getRandomValues()`: A function that generates cryptographically secure random numbers.
* `Web Cryptography API (W3C)**: A set of APIs that provide a way to perform cryptographic operations on the browser, such as generating keys, signing data, and verifying signatures.

**Other Alternatives**

If you're looking for alternative libraries or implementations for SHA-1 calculations, some options include:

* **SHA-1.js**: A lightweight JavaScript implementation of the SHA-1 algorithm.
* **Crypto-SHA-1**: A JavaScript library that provides an implementation of the SHA-1 algorithm along with other cryptographic primitives.

Keep in mind that these alternatives may not be as performant or feature-rich as the libraries and implementations compared in the benchmark.

sha1-js (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `forge vs native vs sjcl vs cryptojs`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

forge

native

sjcl

cryptojs

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 19 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 19 runs

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

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

sha1-js (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: forge vs native vs sjcl vs cryptojs

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

forge

native

sjcl

cryptojs

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 19 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 19 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: `forge vs native vs sjcl vs cryptojs`