Benchmark: Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. Includes vs. Find

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

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 1,048 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 844 runs

Array.indexOf

1.3M/s

Array.includes

1.3M/s

Array.some

227K/s

Array.find

218K/s

Array.filter

47K/s

Fastest: Array.indexOf (28.5x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.indexOf: 1,346,786 ops/sec
• Array.includes: 1,303,116 ops/sec
• Array.some: 226,977 ops/sec
• Array.find: 217,661 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 47,262 ops/sec

Firefox 147 runs

Array.includes

324K/s

Array.indexOf

253K/s

Array.find

49K/s

Array.some

34K/s

Array.filter

19K/s

Fastest: Array.includes (17.2x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.includes: 324,137 ops/sec
• Array.indexOf: 252,977 ops/sec
• Array.find: 49,492 ops/sec
• Array.some: 34,370 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 18,850 ops/sec

Safari 15 runs

Array.indexOf

6.3M/s

Array.find

207K/s

Array.some

154K/s

Array.includes

141K/s

Array.filter

77K/s

Fastest: Array.indexOf (81.7x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.indexOf: 6,317,582 ops/sec
• Array.find: 206,850 ops/sec
• Array.some: 154,255 ops/sec
• Array.includes: 141,232 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 77,350 ops/sec

Other 13 runs

Array.includes

1.3M/s

Array.indexOf

1.1M/s

Array.some

251K/s

Array.find

243K/s

Array.filter

45K/s

Fastest: Array.includes (29.0x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.includes: 1,312,914 ops/sec
• Array.indexOf: 1,089,923 ops/sec
• Array.some: 250,829 ops/sec
• Array.find: 242,997 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 45,339 ops/sec

Mobile Results:

Chrome 20 runs

Array.includes

755K/s

Array.indexOf

692K/s

Array.some

123K/s

Array.find

100K/s

Array.filter

32K/s

Fastest: Array.includes (23.6x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.includes: 755,124 ops/sec
• Array.indexOf: 691,584 ops/sec
• Array.some: 123,077 ops/sec
• Array.find: 99,755 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 31,937 ops/sec

Safari 9 runs

Array.indexOf

8.4M/s

Array.includes

333K/s

Array.find

279K/s

Array.some

174K/s

Array.filter

82K/s

Fastest: Array.indexOf (102.7x faster)

View exact numbers

✓ Array.indexOf: 8,391,583 ops/sec
• Array.includes: 333,000 ops/sec
• Array.find: 279,250 ops/sec
• Array.some: 173,507 ops/sec
• Array.filter: 81,684 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
Array.find

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

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

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:152.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/152.0

Browser/OS: Firefox 152 on Mac OS X 10.15

View result in a separate tab

Array.indexOf

311K/s

Array.includes

291K/s

Array.find

57K/s

Array.some

36K/s

Array.filter

19K/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Array.indexOf	310,798 Ops/sec
Array.includes	291,247 Ops/sec
Array.find	57,352 Ops/sec
Array.some	35,523 Ops/sec
Array.filter	18,542 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 and explore what's being tested on MeasureThat.net.

The benchmark consists of five individual test cases, each measuring the performance of different methods for checking if an array contains a specific value. The methods being compared are:

1. `Array.some()`: This method returns `true` as soon as it finds at least one element in the array that satisfies the provided condition.
2. `Array.filter()`: This method creates a new array with all elements that pass the test implemented by the provided function.
3. `Array.indexOf()`: This method returns the index of the first element that matches the specified value, or -1 if it's not found.
4. `Array.includes()` (introduced in ECMAScript 2015): This method returns `true` if at least one element in the array is equal to the specified value, otherwise it returns `false`.
5. `Array.find()`: This method returns the first element that satisfies the provided condition, or `undefined` if no elements match.

Now, let's discuss the pros and cons of each approach:

**Array.some():**

Pros: Simple to implement, efficient for arrays with only one matching element.
Cons: May be slower than other methods for larger arrays due to its early return behavior.

**Array.filter():**

Pros: More expressive than `some()`, can be used to create new arrays, and is generally faster for larger arrays.
Cons: Creates a new array, which can be memory-intensive.

**Array.indexOf():**

Pros: Fast and efficient, returns the index of the first match, but may return -1 if not found.
Cons: Returns an integer value, which might not be immediately obvious as a boolean result.

**Array.includes():**

Pros: Introduced in ECMAScript 2015, designed for simplicity and readability, and is generally faster than `indexOf()` and `some()`.
Cons: May have performance overhead due to its implementation.

**Array.find():**

Pros: Simple to implement, efficient for arrays with only one matching element, returns the first match.
Cons: May return `undefined` if no elements match.

The test cases use a common setup: an array of 10,000 random integers (0-999), divided into two parts: `hasZero` and `withoutZero`. The benchmark measures how quickly each method can iterate through this array and find at least one element that matches the condition (`v === 0` for `some()` and `find()`, or `v === 1` for `filter()`).

The results show that `Array.includes()` is generally the fastest, followed closely by `Array.indexOf()`. `Array.some()` is slower due to its early return behavior. `Array.filter()` creates a new array, which slows it down. `Array.find()` is similar to `some()`, but may have slightly better performance.

As for special JS features or syntax, none are explicitly mentioned in the benchmark setup, but `includes()` and `find()` do demonstrate modern JavaScript features introduced after ECMAScript 2012.

Other alternatives to these methods might include:

* Using `Array.prototype.every()` for arrays with a single value
* Implementing custom iteration using a loop and conditional statements
* Utilizing native methods like `Set` or `Map` for faster lookups (although this requires additional setup)

In summary, the benchmark provides a straightforward comparison of different array iteration methods, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses.

Some vs. Filter vs. indexOf vs. Includes vs. Find (version: 0)

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

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter

Array.indexOf

Array.includes

Array.find

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 1,048 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 844 runs

Firefox 147 runs

Safari 15 runs

Other 13 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 20 runs

Safari 9 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 vs. Find (version: 0)

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

Created: 6 years ago by: Guest

Go to the latest result

Array.some

Array.filter

Array.indexOf

Array.includes

Array.find

Historical Performance Data aggregated from 1,048 community runs

Desktop Results:

Chrome 844 runs

Firefox 147 runs

Safari 15 runs

Other 13 runs

Mobile Results:

Chrome 20 runs

Safari 9 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 vs Array.find`