Prototype vs Module pattern performance (z)

JavaScript performance comparison

Revision 132 of this test case created by Anzor


Removed iterations in tests, because jsperf already does that for us. And renamed variables to be more meaningful to us humans. And other cosmetic changes.

The most important thing to remember is to use the right tool for the job. All these tests do is reference an object with a complex memory allocation. When you don't need something fancy, you're better off using a regular old object

Preparation code

Benchmark.prototype.setup = function() {
    function TraditionalPrototypeClass() {
    } = function() {
    }; = function() {
    function ModulePatternClass() { = function() {
       = function() {
    var ModuleCachePatternClass = (function () {
        function foo() {
        function bar() {
        return function () {
   = foo;
   = bar;
    var standardObject = {
        foo: function(){
        bar: function(){
    var one = new TraditionalPrototypeClass()
    var two = new ModulePatternClass()
    var three = new ModuleCachePatternClass()
    var four = Object.create(standardObject);

Test runner

Warning! For accurate results, please disable Firebug before running the tests. (Why?)

Java applet disabled.

Testing in unknown unknown
Test Ops/sec
Module pattern;;
Module pattern with cached functions;;
Use the right tool for the job 2;;

Compare results of other browsers


You can edit these tests or add even more tests to this page by appending /edit to the URL. Here’s a list of current revisions for this page:


Comment form temporarily disabled.

Add a comment