WASM vs Browser JavaScript Benchmark
Compare MicroQuickJS WASM interpreter performance against your browser's native JIT-compiled JavaScript engine.
Version: 20241224_v10
Engine: 168KB WASM
Browser: Detecting...
Console Log
Preparing benchmarks...
Browser JavaScript
-
V8 / SpiderMonkey / JSC
WASM (MicroQuickJS)
-
Interpreter, 168KB
Per-Test Comparison
| Test | Browser (ms) | WASM (ms) | Ratio |
|---|
Performance Factors
- Interpreter vs JIT - MicroQuickJS interprets bytecode; browser engines compile to native machine code
- WASM call overhead - Each JS-to-WASM boundary crossing adds latency
- Memory model - WASM uses linear memory with bounds checking on every access
- No runtime optimization - Interpreters cannot optimize hot paths at runtime
- Engine size - MicroQuickJS: 168KB, V8: ~10MB, SpiderMonkey: ~5MB