Prototype vs Module pattern performance

JavaScript performance comparison

Revision 139 of this test case created by Dr Mik


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 proxyObject = {};
    (function(){ = function(){
   = function(){

Test runner

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

Java applet disabled.

Testing in unknown unknown
Test Ops/sec
var o = new TraditionalPrototypeClass();;
Module pattern
var o = new ModulePatternClass();;
Module pattern with cached functions
var o = new ModuleCachePatternClass();;
Use the right tool for the job
var o = standardObject;;;
Use proxy pattern for encapsulation
var o = proxyObject;;;

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