comparing the performance of different template engines
Just for fun. Go Templates work nice out of the box and should be used for rendering from a security point of view. If you really care about performance you should cache the rendered output.
on second thought: I have some templates that cannot be cached in my production code, thats why I'm interested in performant HTML generation using templates. After trying the code generation based projects I liked ego most, but some features where missing and generated code could be optimized further. That's why I created a fork and included the results in this benchmark.
Changed the environment to my local dev laptop: i7-6700T 16GB Mem Golang: 1.7.1
go test -bench "k(Ace|Amber|Golang|Handlebars|Kasia|Mustache|Pongo2|Soy|JetHTML)$" -benchmem -benchtime=3s | pb
Name | Runs | µs/op | B/op | allocations/op |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ace | 300,000 | 16.234 | 5,608 | 77 |
Amber | 1,000,000 | 5.438 | 1,929 | 39 |
Golang | 1,000,000 | 5.366 | 1,904 | 38 |
Handlebars | 300,000 | 12.630 | 4,260 | 90 |
JetHTML | 3,000,000 | 1.441 | 691 | 0 |
Kasia | 1,000,000 | 3.194 | 2,147 | 26 |
Mustache | 1,000,000 | 4.253 | 1,569 | 28 |
Pongo2 | 1,000,000 | 4.402 | 3,302 | 46 |
Soy | 1,000,000 | 3.108 | 1,863 | 26 |
go test -bench "k(Ego|Egon|EgonSlinso|Quicktemplate|Ftmpl|Gorazor)$" -benchmem -benchtime=3s | pb
Name | Runs | µs/op | B/op | allocations/op |
---|---|---|---|---|
Ego | 5,000,000 | 1.169 | 914 | 8 |
Egon | 2,000,000 | 2.290 | 827 | 22 |
EgonSlinso | 10,000,000 | 0.629 | 828 | 0 |
Ftmpl | 3,000,000 | 1.683 | 1,142 | 12 |
Gorazor | 3,000,000 | 1.632 | 613 | 11 |
Quicktemplate | 10,000,000 | 0.452 | 799 | 0 |
I removed Damsel, because transpilation should just happen once at startup. If you cache the transpilation result, which is recommended, you would have the same performance numbers as html/template for rendering.
go test . -bench="Complex" -benchmem -benchtime=3s | pb
Name | Runs | µs/op | B/op | allocations/op |
---|---|---|---|---|
ComplexEgo | 1,000,000 | 5.305 | 2,561 | 41 |
ComplexEgoSlinso | 2,000,000 | 2.346 | 2,070 | 7 |
ComplexEgon | 300,000 | 10.206 | 4,792 | 101 |
ComplexFtmpl | 500,000 | 8.487 | 5,300 | 48 |
ComplexFtmplInclude | 500,000 | 9.522 | 5,300 | 48 |
ComplexGolang | 100,000 | 44.813 | 12,415 | 295 |
ComplexGorazor | 300,000 | 13.306 | 8,327 | 73 |
ComplexJetHTML | 500,000 | 10.537 | 4,164 | 5 |
ComplexMustache | 200,000 | 27.743 | 7,856 | 166 |
ComplexQuicktemplate | 2,000,000 | 2.610 | 1,892 | 0 |
All packages assume that template authors are trusted. If you allow custom templates you have to sanitize your user input e.g. bluemonday. Generally speaking I would suggest to sanitize every input not just HTML-input.
Framework | Security | Comment |
---|---|---|
Ace | No | |
amber | No | |
Damsel | Yes, if html/template is used for execution | Damsel transpiles to HTML |
ego | Partial (html.EscapeString) | only HTML, others need to be called manually |
egon | Partial (html.EscapeString) | only HTML, others need to be called manually |
egonslinso | Partial (html.EscapeString) | only HTML, others need to be called manually |
ftmpl | Partial (html.EscapeString) | only HTML, others need to be called manually |
Go | Yes | contextual escaping html/template Security Model |
Gorazor | Partial (template.HTMLEscapeString) | only HTML, others need to be called manually |
Handlebars | Partial (raymond.escape) | only HTML |
Jet | Partial (html.EscapeString) | Autoescape for HTML, others need to be called manually |
Kasia | Partial (kasia.WriteEscapedHtml) | only HTML |
Mustache | Partial (template.HTMLEscape) | only HTML |
Pongo2 | Partial (pongo2.filterEscape, pongo2.filterEscapejs) | autoescape only escapes HTML, others could be implemented as pongo filters |
Quicktemplate | Partial (html.EscapeString) | only HTML, others need to be called manually |
Soy | Partial (template.HTMLEscapeString, url.QueryEscape, template.JSEscapeString) | autoescape only escapes HTML, contextual escaping is defined as a project goal |