Fast.js benchmarks - node v5.5.0

fastjs-benchmarks.sh

 Running 55 benchmarks, please wait...

  Native .fill() vs fast.fill() (3 items)
    ✓  Array.prototype.fill() x 12,868,637 ops/sec ±4.44% (66 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.fill() x 25,604,456 ops/sec ±2.60% (64 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 98.97% faster than Array.prototype.fill().

  Native .fill() vs fast.fill() (10 items)
    ✓  Array.prototype.fill() x 7,098,897 ops/sec ±4.15% (74 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.fill() x 12,800,574 ops/sec ±3.09% (80 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 80.32% faster than Array.prototype.fill().

  Native .fill() vs fast.fill() (1000 items)
    ✓  Array.prototype.fill() x 241,777 ops/sec ±1.59% (82 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.fill() x 252,850 ops/sec ±0.84% (87 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 4.58% faster than Array.prototype.fill().

  Native .reduce() plucker vs fast.pluck()
    ✓  Native Array::reduce() plucker x 210,216 ops/sec ±3.81% (75 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.pluck() x 254,406 ops/sec ±2.86% (72 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.pluck() x 258,981 ops/sec ±4.30% (70 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.pluck(): 

    Result: fast.js is 21.02% faster than Native Array::reduce() plucker.

  Native Object.keys().map() value extractor vs fast.values()
    ✓  Native Object.keys().map() x 866,886 ops/sec ±3.33% (77 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.values() x 2,504,170 ops/sec ±2.67% (74 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.values() x 2,439,824 ops/sec ±3.20% (78 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.values() x 1,109,888 ops/sec ±4.47% (77 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 188.87% faster than Native Object.keys().map().

  Object.assign() vs fast.assign()
    ✓  Object.assign() x 55,626 ops/sec ±7.26% (60 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.assign() x 77,657 ops/sec ±4.81% (73 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.assign() v0.0.4c x 104,959 ops/sec ±5.61% (61 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.assign() v0.0.4b x 82,449 ops/sec ±6.42% (64 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.assign() x 56,552 ops/sec ±5.32% (76 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 39.60% faster than Object.assign().

  Object.assign() vs fast.assign() (3 arguments)
    ✓  Object.assign() x 20,295 ops/sec ±5.00% (70 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.assign() x 24,842 ops/sec ±4.55% (70 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.assign() v0.0.4c x 31,198 ops/sec ±3.63% (71 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.assign() v0.0.4b x 28,928 ops/sec ±3.04% (67 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 22.40% faster than Object.assign().

  Object.assign() vs fast.assign() (10 arguments)
    ✓  Object.assign() x 7,842 ops/sec ±3.17% (72 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.assign() x 8,831 ops/sec ±4.01% (72 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.assign() v0.0.4c x 10,498 ops/sec ±3.76% (73 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.assign() v0.0.4b x 9,792 ops/sec ±3.29% (73 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 12.61% faster than Object.assign().

  Native string comparison vs fast.intern() (short)
    ✓  Native comparison x 17,133,269 ops/sec ±2.60% (85 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.intern() x 59,411,352 ops/sec ±1.53% (86 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 246.76% faster than Native comparison.

  Native string comparison vs fast.intern() (medium)
    ✓  Native comparison x 11,170,916 ops/sec ±1.50% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.intern() x 58,489,703 ops/sec ±1.70% (87 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 423.59% faster than Native comparison.

  Native string comparison vs fast.intern() (long)
    ✓  Native comparison x 90,682 ops/sec ±4.46% (68 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.intern() x 58,365,800 ops/sec ±1.48% (86 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 64263.30% faster than Native comparison.

  Native try {} catch (e) {} vs fast.try()
    ✓  try...catch x 149,207 ops/sec ±3.23% (80 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.try() x 2,242,832 ops/sec ±2.14% (89 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 1403.17% faster than try...catch.

  Native try {} catch (e) {} vs fast.try() (single function call)
    ✓  try...catch x 125,578 ops/sec ±3.84% (67 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.try() x 2,953,545 ops/sec ±1.35% (86 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 2251.97% faster than try...catch.

  Native .apply() vs fast.apply() (3 items, no context)
    ✓  Function::apply() x 11,046,166 ops/sec ±1.49% (88 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.apply() x 19,874,592 ops/sec ±1.39% (90 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 79.92% faster than Function::apply().

  Native .apply() vs fast.apply() (3 items, with context)
    ✓  Function::apply() x 10,008,320 ops/sec ±1.32% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.apply() x 16,831,828 ops/sec ±1.14% (81 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 68.18% faster than Function::apply().

  Native .apply() vs fast.apply() (6 items, no context)
    ✓  Function::apply() x 10,511,219 ops/sec ±1.26% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.apply() x 18,057,425 ops/sec ±1.96% (84 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 71.79% faster than Function::apply().

  Native .apply() vs fast.apply() (6 items, with context)
    ✓  Function::apply() x 8,706,685 ops/sec ±1.07% (93 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.apply() x 17,086,010 ops/sec ±1.17% (88 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 96.24% faster than Function::apply().

  Native .apply() vs fast.apply() (10 items, no context)
    ✓  Function::apply() x 7,704,905 ops/sec ±1.34% (91 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.apply() x 6,930,310 ops/sec ±1.71% (87 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 10.05% slower than Function::apply().

  Native .apply() vs fast.apply() (10 items, with context)
    ✓  Function::apply() x 6,936,923 ops/sec ±1.97% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.apply() x 6,542,181 ops/sec ±1.31% (90 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 5.69% slower than Function::apply().

  fast.clone() vs underscore.clone() vs lodash.clone()
    ✓  fast.clone() x 2,162,530 ops/sec ±1.41% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.clone() x 1,626,226 ops/sec ±1.63% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.clone() x 39,094 ops/sec ±3.70% (70 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 5431.67% faster than lodash.clone().

  Native .indexOf() vs fast.indexOf() (3 items)
    ✓  Array::indexOf() x 7,954,279 ops/sec ±2.49% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.indexOf() x 27,437,544 ops/sec ±1.39% (93 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.indexOf() v0.0.2 x 29,147,408 ops/sec ±1.50% (91 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.indexOf() x 11,031,085 ops/sec ±2.44% (81 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.indexOf() x 19,745,896 ops/sec ±1.22% (90 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 244.94% faster than Array::indexOf().

  Native .indexOf() vs fast.indexOf() (10 items)
    ✓  Array::indexOf() x 6,676,828 ops/sec ±1.63% (84 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.indexOf() x 16,237,600 ops/sec ±1.35% (92 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.indexOf() v0.0.2 x 18,040,902 ops/sec ±1.73% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.indexOf() x 8,910,233 ops/sec ±2.35% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.indexOf() x 12,910,079 ops/sec ±1.51% (87 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 143.19% faster than Array::indexOf().

  Native .indexOf() vs fast.indexOf() (1000 items)
    ✓  Array::indexOf() x 175,668 ops/sec ±1.26% (91 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.indexOf() x 232,130 ops/sec ±1.25% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.indexOf() v0.0.2 x 373,194 ops/sec ±1.16% (94 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.indexOf() x 214,124 ops/sec ±1.10% (94 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.indexOf() x 303,883 ops/sec ±1.25% (89 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 32.14% faster than Array::indexOf().

  Native .lastIndexOf() vs fast.lastIndexOf() (3 items)
    ✓  Array::lastIndexOf() x 64,123,104 ops/sec ±1.49% (88 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.lastIndexOf() x 53,045,132 ops/sec ±1.84% (91 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.lastIndexOf() v0.0.2 x 51,143,801 ops/sec ±2.21% (84 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.lastIndexOf() x 24,323,314 ops/sec ±1.84% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.lastIndexOf() x 41,102,277 ops/sec ±1.88% (90 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 17.28% slower than Array::lastIndexOf().

  Native .lastIndexOf() vs fast.lastIndexOf() (10 items)
    ✓  Array::lastIndexOf() x 42,306,320 ops/sec ±1.82% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.lastIndexOf() x 26,322,484 ops/sec ±2.05% (88 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.lastIndexOf() v0.0.2 x 35,528,299 ops/sec ±1.32% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.lastIndexOf() x 11,972,607 ops/sec ±2.07% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.lastIndexOf() x 21,084,296 ops/sec ±2.37% (83 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 37.78% slower than Array::lastIndexOf().

  Native .lastIndexOf() vs fast.lastIndexOf() (1000 items)
    ✓  Array::lastIndexOf() x 1,561,431 ops/sec ±1.68% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.lastIndexOf() x 644,410 ops/sec ±1.39% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.lastIndexOf() v0.0.2 x 1,053,289 ops/sec ±1.29% (93 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.lastIndexOf() x 354,796 ops/sec ±1.78% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.lastIndexOf() x 553,636 ops/sec ±1.46% (88 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 58.73% slower than Array::lastIndexOf().

  Native .bind() vs fast.bind()
    ✓  Function::bind() x 739,448 ops/sec ±2.02% (85 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.bind() x 4,547,063 ops/sec ±1.90% (82 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.bind() v0.0.2 x 3,614,660 ops/sec ±1.89% (83 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.bind() x 217,509 ops/sec ±3.66% (64 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.bind() x 1,304,408 ops/sec ±2.20% (83 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 514.93% faster than Function::bind().

  Native .bind() vs fast.bind() with prebound functions
    ✓  Function::bind() x 2,439,137 ops/sec ±2.40% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.bind() x 15,512,379 ops/sec ±1.59% (88 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.bind() v0.0.2 x 10,029,942 ops/sec ±2.09% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.bind() x 3,283,964 ops/sec ±1.71% (88 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.bind() x 14,789,797 ops/sec ±1.66% (87 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 535.98% faster than Function::bind().

  Native .bind() vs fast.partial()
    ✓  Function::bind() x 763,794 ops/sec ±1.86% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() x 4,759,959 ops/sec ±1.67% (82 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() v0.0.2 x 3,449,727 ops/sec ±1.40% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() v0.0.0 x 3,540,963 ops/sec ±1.71% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.partial() x 266,374 ops/sec ±3.02% (70 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.partial() x 1,243,028 ops/sec ±2.81% (84 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 523.20% faster than Function::bind().

  Native .bind() vs fast.partial() with prebound functions
    ✓  Function::bind() x 2,189,861 ops/sec ±1.57% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() x 12,529,554 ops/sec ±1.54% (88 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() v0.0.2 x 8,867,621 ops/sec ±1.59% (81 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.partial() v0.0.0 x 8,838,843 ops/sec ±2.24% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.partial() x 4,674,540 ops/sec ±2.76% (73 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.partial() x 12,428,929 ops/sec ±2.65% (89 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 472.16% faster than Function::bind().

  Native .map() vs fast.map() (3 items)
    ✓  Array::map() x 3,752,621 ops/sec ±1.68% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.map() x 7,167,934 ops/sec ±2.34% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.map() v0.0.2a x 5,917,067 ops/sec ±2.01% (79 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.map() v0.0.1 x 5,950,209 ops/sec ±2.16% (88 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.map() v0.0.0 x 7,356,474 ops/sec ±1.61% (84 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.map() x 4,977,493 ops/sec ±2.69% (80 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.map() x 6,611,393 ops/sec ±1.99% (85 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 91.01% faster than Array::map().

  Native .map() vs fast.map() (10 items)
    ✓  Array::map() x 1,949,084 ops/sec ±1.57% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.map() x 2,974,484 ops/sec ±1.36% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.map() v0.0.2a x 2,785,573 ops/sec ±1.36% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.map() v0.0.1 x 2,692,665 ops/sec ±1.45% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.map() v0.0.0 x 2,792,613 ops/sec ±1.70% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.map() x 2,335,588 ops/sec ±1.72% (84 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.map() x 2,639,732 ops/sec ±1.62% (88 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 52.61% faster than Array::map().

  Native .map() vs fast.map() (1000 items)
    ✓  Array::map() x 25,777 ops/sec ±1.98% (84 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.map() x 32,990 ops/sec ±2.51% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.map() v0.0.2a x 32,064 ops/sec ±2.46% (83 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.map() v0.0.1 x 34,112 ops/sec ±1.33% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.map() v0.0.0 x 33,091 ops/sec ±1.51% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.map() x 33,424 ops/sec ±1.87% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.map() x 34,163 ops/sec ±1.48% (86 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 27.98% faster than Array::map().

  Native .filter() vs fast.filter() (3 items)
    ✓  Array::filter() x 3,396,562 ops/sec ±1.28% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.filter() x 4,931,978 ops/sec ±1.94% (85 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.filter() x 1,903,048 ops/sec ±2.74% (76 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.filter() x 4,499,409 ops/sec ±2.25% (85 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 45.21% faster than Array::filter().

  Native .filter() vs fast.filter() (10 items)
    ✓  Array::filter() x 1,201,582 ops/sec ±1.95% (77 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.filter() x 1,878,767 ops/sec ±1.96% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.filter() x 1,115,056 ops/sec ±6.73% (73 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.filter() x 1,947,086 ops/sec ±1.75% (89 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 56.36% faster than Array::filter().

  Native .filter() vs fast.filter() (1000 items)
    ✓  Array::filter() x 17,411 ops/sec ±1.18% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.filter() x 19,236 ops/sec ±1.19% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.filter() x 6,830 ops/sec ±1.53% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.filter() x 18,925 ops/sec ±1.56% (85 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 10.48% faster than Array::filter().

  Native .reduce() vs fast.reduce() (3 items)
    ✓  Array::reduce() x 7,150,512 ops/sec ±1.44% (92 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() x 8,899,260 ops/sec ±1.00% (91 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() v0.0.2c x 3,095,861 ops/sec ±1.70% (88 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() v0.0.2b x 8,728,442 ops/sec ±1.52% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() v0.0.2a x 7,342,089 ops/sec ±1.57% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() v0.0.1 x 7,240,896 ops/sec ±1.46% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() v0.0.0 x 8,804,373 ops/sec ±1.38% (91 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.reduce() x 5,227,776 ops/sec ±2.13% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.reduce() x 6,433,969 ops/sec ±1.88% (90 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 24.46% faster than Array::reduce().

  Native .reduce() vs fast.reduce() (10 items)
    ✓  Array::reduce() x 2,448,028 ops/sec ±1.96% (83 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() x 2,960,409 ops/sec ±2.37% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() v0.0.2c x 1,604,951 ops/sec ±2.05% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() v0.0.2b x 3,006,620 ops/sec ±1.39% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() v0.0.2a x 2,682,430 ops/sec ±1.83% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() v0.0.1 x 2,828,709 ops/sec ±1.41% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() v0.0.0 x 2,945,051 ops/sec ±1.77% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.reduce() x 2,327,431 ops/sec ±1.43% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.reduce() x 2,536,917 ops/sec ±1.70% (89 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 20.93% faster than Array::reduce().

  Native .reduce() vs fast.reduce() (1000 items)
    ✓  Array::reduce() x 32,288 ops/sec ±1.75% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() x 38,007 ops/sec ±2.18% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() v0.0.2c x 19,557 ops/sec ±1.71% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() v0.0.2b x 37,476 ops/sec ±2.21% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() v0.0.2a x 36,875 ops/sec ±1.49% (91 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() v0.0.1 x 36,400 ops/sec ±1.23% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduce() v0.0.0 x 36,106 ops/sec ±1.30% (92 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.reduce() x 36,910 ops/sec ±1.53% (88 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.reduce() x 37,941 ops/sec ±1.62% (88 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 17.71% faster than Array::reduce().

  Native .reduceRight() vs fast.reduceRight() (3 items)
    ✓  Array::reduceRight() x 6,106,027 ops/sec ±2.40% (84 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduceRight() x 7,676,361 ops/sec ±2.51% (84 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.reduceRight() x 5,158,669 ops/sec ±1.46% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.reduceRight() x 6,110,217 ops/sec ±1.37% (90 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 25.72% faster than Array::reduceRight().

  Native .reduceRight() vs fast.reduceRight() (10 items)
    ✓  Array::reduceRight() x 2,674,438 ops/sec ±1.41% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduceRight() x 3,102,635 ops/sec ±1.30% (92 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.reduceRight() x 2,468,280 ops/sec ±1.34% (91 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.reduceRight() x 2,703,918 ops/sec ±1.38% (92 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 16.01% faster than Array::reduceRight().

  Native .reduceRight() vs fast.reduceRight() (1000 items)
    ✓  Array::reduceRight() x 18,139 ops/sec ±1.03% (88 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.reduceRight() x 18,988 ops/sec ±1.06% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.reduceRight() x 18,276 ops/sec ±1.93% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.reduceRight() x 18,098 ops/sec ±2.53% (82 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 4.68% faster than Array::reduceRight().

  Native .forEach() vs fast.forEach() (3 items)
    ✓  Array::forEach() x 6,159,599 ops/sec ±1.57% (83 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.forEach() x 9,881,303 ops/sec ±1.20% (94 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.forEach() v0.0.2a x 7,132,908 ops/sec ±2.06% (88 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.forEach() v0.0.1 x 7,439,252 ops/sec ±1.65% (88 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.forEach() v0.0.0 x 9,317,226 ops/sec ±1.72% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.forEach() x 6,136,480 ops/sec ±1.74% (84 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.forEach() x 8,672,498 ops/sec ±2.27% (87 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 60.42% faster than Array::forEach().

  Native .forEach() vs fast.forEach() (10 items)
    ✓  Array::forEach() x 3,057,104 ops/sec ±2.33% (88 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.forEach() x 3,613,966 ops/sec ±2.57% (84 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.forEach() v0.0.2a x 3,496,365 ops/sec ±2.48% (82 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.forEach() v0.0.1 x 3,320,217 ops/sec ±3.77% (83 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.forEach() v0.0.0 x 3,852,394 ops/sec ±1.56% (84 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.forEach() x 3,509,789 ops/sec ±1.85% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.forEach() x 3,863,156 ops/sec ±1.31% (88 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 18.22% faster than Array::forEach().

  Native .forEach() vs fast.forEach() (1000 items)
    ✓  Array::forEach() x 44,002 ops/sec ±1.71% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.forEach() x 59,872 ops/sec ±1.86% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.forEach() v0.0.2a x 60,410 ops/sec ±1.36% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.forEach() v0.0.1 x 58,167 ops/sec ±1.66% (89 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.forEach() v0.0.0 x 54,192 ops/sec ±1.89% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.forEach() x 60,779 ops/sec ±1.48% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.forEach() x 51,285 ops/sec ±2.23% (83 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 36.07% faster than Array::forEach().

  Native .some() vs fast.some() (3 items)
    ✓  Array::some() x 8,559,048 ops/sec ±2.41% (85 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.some() x 12,304,382 ops/sec ±1.96% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.some() x 7,979,194 ops/sec ±1.72% (85 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.some() x 10,486,345 ops/sec ±2.11% (88 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 43.76% faster than Array::some().

  Native .some() vs fast.some() (10 items)
    ✓  Array::some() x 4,081,742 ops/sec ±1.88% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.some() x 6,193,300 ops/sec ±1.12% (94 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.some() x 4,598,582 ops/sec ±1.29% (91 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.some() x 5,513,358 ops/sec ±1.11% (94 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 51.73% faster than Array::some().

  Native .some() vs fast.some() (1000 items)
    ✓  Array::some() x 63,272 ops/sec ±1.79% (91 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.some() x 88,615 ops/sec ±2.37% (85 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.some() x 81,506 ops/sec ±2.55% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.some() x 88,006 ops/sec ±1.11% (91 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 40.05% faster than Array::some().

  Native .every() vs fast.every() (3 items)
    ✓  Array::every() x 8,491,353 ops/sec ±2.57% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.every() x 12,703,246 ops/sec ±1.70% (90 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.every() x 8,052,871 ops/sec ±2.10% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.every() x 10,731,430 ops/sec ±1.87% (89 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 49.60% faster than Array::every().

  Native .every() vs fast.every() (10 items)
    ✓  Array::every() x 4,027,348 ops/sec ±2.15% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.every() x 6,048,696 ops/sec ±1.72% (91 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.every() x 4,506,507 ops/sec ±1.73% (92 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.every() x 4,911,657 ops/sec ±2.10% (86 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 50.19% faster than Array::every().

  Native .every() vs fast.every() (1000 items)
    ✓  Array::every() x 63,383 ops/sec ±2.90% (86 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.every() x 93,508 ops/sec ±1.62% (88 runs sampled)
    ✓  underscore.every() x 91,763 ops/sec ±1.69% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  lodash.every() x 90,415 ops/sec ±2.44% (86 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 47.53% faster than Array::every().

  Native .concat() vs fast.concat() (3 items)
    ✓  Array::concat() x 1,066,393 ops/sec ±2.67% (82 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.concat() x 6,977,270 ops/sec ±1.52% (84 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 554.29% faster than Array::concat().

  Native .concat() vs fast.concat() (10 items)
    ✓  Array::concat() x 1,092,984 ops/sec ±1.29% (87 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.concat() x 3,877,689 ops/sec ±2.08% (80 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 254.78% faster than Array::concat().

  Native .concat() vs fast.concat() (1000 items)
    ✓  Array::concat() x 640,389 ops/sec ±3.22% (71 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.concat() x 98,926 ops/sec ±2.20% (83 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 84.55% slower than Array::concat().

  Native .concat() vs fast.concat() (1000 items, using apply)
    ✓  Array::concat() x 32,563 ops/sec ±2.07% (82 runs sampled)
    ✓  fast.concat() x 52,300 ops/sec ±2.13% (85 runs sampled)

    Result: fast.js is 60.61% faster than Array::concat().

  
Finished in 1409 seconds