Run results for: Underscore vs Lodash: isNaN

Run details:

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser: Chrome 132

Operating system: Mac OS X 10.15.7

Device Platform: Desktop

Date tested: one year ago

Native JS

138.3M/s

Lodash

109.4M/s

Underscore

45.8M/s

View exact numbers

Test name	Executions per second
✓ Native JS	138,260,944 Ops/sec
Lodash	109,382,328 Ops/sec
Underscore	45,778,088 Ops/sec

HTML Preparation code:


<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/lodash.js/4.17.5/lodash.min.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  window.lodash = _;
  _ = null;
</script>
<script src='https://cdnjs.cloudflare.com/ajax/libs/underscore.js/1.9.1/underscore-min.js'></script>
<script type="text/javascript">
  window.underscore = _;
  _ = null;
</script>

Script Preparation code:

var a = NaN;

Tests:

Underscore
underscore.isNaN(a);
Lodash
lodash.isNaN(a);
Native JS
Number.isNaN(NaN)

Run results for: Underscore vs Lodash: isNaN

Compare Underscore vs Lodash vs Native JS isNaN. Which is faster?

Underscore

Lodash

Native JS