Yahoo! JAPAN

2026/2/19 -Conclusion. JSON.parse(JSON.stringify()) was a clever workaround. But structuredClone() is the correct solution. ... Does the tape work? Sure. But ...

JSON Parse vs StructuredClone bigger object (version: 0) tinybench. Comparses JSON.parse(JSON.stringify()) vs structuredClone on a bigger JSON object.

2025/12/7 -Interview Question #6 — structuredClone vs JSON.parse(JSON.stringify()) — Explained in Under 60 Seconds (No BS!)

2016/11/8 -Because JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj)) has some limitations like you have mentioned, which are, they do not serialize the circular object or ...

2024/9/4 -structuredClone() is often faster than JSON.stringify() + JSON.parse() for large, complex data, and avoids the pitfalls of serializing and ...

2026/8/20 -JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj)) is the old way to deep copy an object. It works until the object contains something JSON has no syntax for.

2025/8/1 -If your object is simple and you need a string—stick with JSON.stringify() . If you're working with complex nested data, state snapshots, or ...

2023/12/22 -Per your benchmark, in Firefox, structuredClone is slightly faster, but in Chromium, JSON.stringify is more than twice as fast. I wonder what ...

This test compares performance of deep cloning a nested object using JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(...)) versus structuredClone to determine which cloning ...

2026/1/24 -In multiple code paths, happy-dom uses JSON.parse(JSON.stringify(obj)) to clone an object. We should be able to improve performance (and ...