Benchmark: crypto-subtle - 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/cryptico/0.0.1343522940/cryptico.min.js"></script>
<script
 src="https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/crypto-js/3.1.9-1/crypto-js.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:

Cryptico
SHA256(data);
Crypto.js
CryptoJS.SHA256(data);
sjcl
sjcl.hash.sha256.hash(data);
window.crypto SHA-1
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-1", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) {console.log(hex(hash));});
window.crypto SHA-256
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-256", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) {console.log(hex(hash));});
window.crypto SHA-384
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-384", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) {console.log(hex(hash));});
window.crypto SHA-512
crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-512", dataBuffer ).then(function (hash) {console.log(hex(hash));});

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 111 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 83 runs

window.crypto SHA-384

246K/s

window.crypto SHA-1

227K/s

window.crypto SHA-256

224K/s

window.crypto SHA-512

222K/s

sjcl

23K/s

Crypto.js

21K/s

Cryptico

13K/s

Fastest: window.crypto SHA-384 (19.0x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ window.crypto SHA-384: 246,465 ops/sec
• window.crypto SHA-1: 227,405 ops/sec
• window.crypto SHA-256: 223,979 ops/sec
• window.crypto SHA-512: 221,777 ops/sec
• sjcl: 23,093 ops/sec
• Crypto.js: 21,130 ops/sec
• Cryptico: 12,969 ops/sec

Firefox 23 runs

window.crypto SHA-256

308K/s

window.crypto SHA-384

303K/s

window.crypto SHA-512

300K/s

window.crypto SHA-1

295K/s

Crypto.js

20K/s

sjcl

19K/s

Cryptico

3K/s

Fastest: window.crypto SHA-256 (102.1x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ window.crypto SHA-256: 308,264 ops/sec
• window.crypto SHA-384: 303,289 ops/sec
• window.crypto SHA-512: 300,326 ops/sec
• window.crypto SHA-1: 294,653 ops/sec
• Crypto.js: 19,719 ops/sec
• sjcl: 19,039 ops/sec
• Cryptico: 3,019 ops/sec

Mobile Results:

Chrome 5 runs

window.crypto SHA-384

60K/s

window.crypto SHA-512

60K/s

window.crypto SHA-1

55K/s

window.crypto SHA-256

55K/s

Crypto.js

10K/s

sjcl

9K/s

Cryptico

5K/s

Fastest: window.crypto SHA-384 (11.4x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ window.crypto SHA-384: 60,432 ops/sec
• window.crypto SHA-512: 60,397 ops/sec
• window.crypto SHA-1: 54,854 ops/sec
• window.crypto SHA-256: 54,768 ops/sec
• Crypto.js: 9,902 ops/sec
• sjcl: 9,307 ops/sec
• Cryptico: 5,281 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
Cryptico
Crypto.js
sjcl
window.crypto SHA-1
window.crypto SHA-256
window.crypto SHA-384
window.crypto SHA-512

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/142.0.0.0 Safari/537.36 Edg/142.0.0.0

Browser/OS: Chrome 142 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

window.crypto SHA-1

130K/s

window.crypto SHA-256

117K/s

window.crypto SHA-512

102K/s

window.crypto SHA-384

102K/s

Crypto.js

20K/s

sjcl

20K/s

Cryptico

17K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ window.crypto SHA-1	129,756 Ops/sec
window.crypto SHA-256	117,124 Ops/sec
window.crypto SHA-512	102,133 Ops/sec
window.crypto SHA-384	101,915 Ops/sec
Crypto.js	20,041 Ops/sec
sjcl	19,799 Ops/sec
Cryptico	17,422 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 is being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark definition is a JSON object that defines the test case. In this case, there are 6 different test cases:

1. `SHA256(data);`
2. `CryptoJS.SHA256(data);`
3. `sjcl.hash.sha256.hash(data);`
4. `crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-1", dataBuffer).then(function (hash) { console.log(hex(hash)); });`
5. `crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-256", dataBuffer).then(function (hash) { console.log(hex(hash)); });`
6. `crypto.subtle.digest("SHA-384", dataBuffer).then(function (hash) { console.log(hex(hash)); });`

These test cases are comparing the performance of different cryptographic algorithms and libraries:

* `SHA256(data);` uses the SHA-256 algorithm implemented in the browser's Web Cryptography API.
* `CryptoJS.SHA256(data);` uses the SHA-256 algorithm from the CryptoJS library.
* `sjcl.hash.sha256.hash(data);` uses the SHA-256 algorithm from the sjcl (Secure JavaScript Cryptography Library).
* The last three test cases use the `crypto.subtle.digest()` function to perform a cryptographic hash using different algorithms (`SHA-1`, `SHA-256`, and `SHA-384`) with data provided by the `window.crypto.getRandomValues()` function.

**Options Compared**

The options being compared are:

* Web Cryptography API (W3C) for SHA-256
* CryptoJS library for SHA-256
* sjcl library for SHA-256

Each option has its pros and cons:

* Web Cryptography API:
	+ Pros: Built-in in modern browsers, easy to use, secure.
	+ Cons: May not be available in older browsers or mobile devices.
* CryptoJS library:
	+ Pros: Well-maintained, widely used, provides additional cryptographic functions.
	+ Cons: Requires additional download and setup, may have security vulnerabilities if not used carefully.
* sjcl library:
	+ Pros: Lightweight, secure, provides additional cryptographic functions.
	+ Cons: May require additional download and setup, less well-known than CryptoJS.

**Libraries Used**

The three libraries being compared are:

* Web Cryptography API (W3C)
* CryptoJS
* sjcl

These libraries provide different implementations of the SHA-256 algorithm, which is used for data integrity and authenticity verification.

**Performance Comparison**

The performance comparison shows that the Web Cryptography API (W3C) provides the fastest results for all test cases, followed by the sjcl library. The CryptoJS library is slower than both options.

**Device Information**

The device information shows that all tests were run on a Chrome browser with the same version number, indicating that the results are not affected by differences in browser versions.

**Conclusion**

In conclusion, this benchmark compares the performance of different cryptographic algorithms and libraries for SHA-256. The Web Cryptography API (W3C) provides the fastest results, followed by the sjcl library. The CryptoJS library is slower due to additional overhead from downloading and setting up the library. This comparison can help developers choose the best option for their specific use case.

crypto-subtle (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: `Cryptico vs Crypto.js vs sjcl vs window.crypto SHA-1 vs window.crypto SHA-256 vs window.crypto SHA-384 vs window.crypto SHA-512`

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Cryptico

Crypto.js

sjcl

window.crypto SHA-1

window.crypto SHA-256

window.crypto SHA-384

window.crypto SHA-512

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 111 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 83 runs

Firefox 23 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 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):

crypto-subtle (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: Cryptico vs Crypto.js vs sjcl vs window.crypto SHA-1 vs window.crypto SHA-256 vs window.crypto SHA-384 vs window.crypto SHA-512

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Cryptico

Crypto.js

sjcl

window.crypto SHA-1

window.crypto SHA-256

window.crypto SHA-384

window.crypto SHA-512

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 111 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 83 runs

Firefox 23 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 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: `Cryptico vs Crypto.js vs sjcl vs window.crypto SHA-1 vs window.crypto SHA-256 vs window.crypto SHA-384 vs window.crypto SHA-512`