Lodash vs Underscore.js: Complete Guide to Differences

Lodash and Underscore.js are both popular JavaScript utility libraries, with Lodash being essentially an enhanced superset of Underscore that offers better performance, more comprehensive functionality, and improved modern JavaScript support, while Underscore.js provides a more minimal approach with a smaller bundle size but fewer features and less optimization for contemporary development practices.

Contents

• Core Differences Between Lodash and Underscore.js
• Performance Comparison
• Bundle Size and Modern JavaScript Support
• API Coverage and Functionality
• Factors Influencing Library Choice
• Migration Considerations

Core Differences Between Lodash and Underscore.js

The fundamental relationship between Lodash and Underscore.js is hierarchical - Lodash was developed as an enhanced superset of Underscore.js, meaning it provides all of Underscore’s functionality while adding significant improvements and additional features. This foundational difference means that any code working with Underscore will generally work with Lodash, but not necessarily vice versa.

Historical Context: Lodash began as “Lo-Dash” with the explicit goal of being a drop-in alternative to Underscore that addressed performance issues and added useful extras. However, as noted in the Wikipedia entry, Lodash eventually departed from the original Underscore interface, especially after version 3.0.0, which sometimes requires code changes for migrations.

Key Differentiating Features:

• AMD Support: Lodash includes AMD (Asynchronous Module Definition) support out of the box, making it more compatible with various module systems
• Deep Clone and Merge: These operations are significantly more robust in Lodash
• Consistency: Lodash provides more consistent behavior across different data types and edge cases
• Modular Structure: Lodash offers better modularization options for selective imports

---

Performance Comparison

Performance is arguably one of the most significant advantages of Lodash over Underscore.js across virtually all benchmarks and real-world scenarios.

Benchmark Results: According to performance tests on arrays of 10,000 items, Lodash averages 35% faster execution (170ms compared to Underscore’s 225ms) in Chrome 123 and Node.js 20. The performance gap becomes even more pronounced in specific operations:

• Deep cloning: Lodash achieves this in 28ms versus Underscore’s 58ms - nearly halving processing time
• Collection operations: Lodash consistently performs 4-5x better than Underscore in many scenarios
• Large iterable handling: Lodash shows “significantly better performance and optimization of larger iterables than underscore”

Performance Factors:

• Lodash’s internal implementation uses more optimized algorithms
• Better handling of edge cases prevents performance degradation in complex scenarios
• Improved memory management for large datasets
• More efficient function call patterns

As Joe Fleming’s analysis demonstrates, “Lo-Dash is consistently higher than Underscore, and usually by a lot. Like 4-5x or more a lot” when measured in operations per second.

---

Bundle Size and Modern JavaScript Support

While Lodash’s comprehensive API comes with trade-offs, modern JavaScript development practices have significantly leveled the playing field regarding bundle size.

Bundle Size Comparison:

• Full Lodash: 1.41 MB (as noted in the LogRocket analysis)
• Full Underscore: 906kB
• Tree-shaken Lodash: Can be reduced to just the specific functions needed
• Modular Underscore: Still generally larger than equivalent tree-shaken Lodash imports

Modern JavaScript Advantages of Lodash:

• ES Module Support: Lodash-es (the ES module variant) works seamlessly with modern bundlers
• Tree-shaking Efficiency: Lodash’s modular structure allows for more effective tree-shaking, optimizing bundle sizes by 10-50% in most benchmarks
• Build Tool Integration: Better compatibility with Webpack, Rollup, and other modern build tools
• TypeScript Support: More comprehensive TypeScript definitions and type safety

The performance advantage extends beyond runtime speed to build-time optimization. As one analysis notes, “tree-shaking for reducing bundle sizes, optimizing performance by up to 50% in some cases” when using Lodash’s modular approach.

---

API Coverage and Functionality

The breadth and depth of available functions represents one of the most significant differences between these libraries.

Function Count Comparison:

• Lodash: Over 300 utility methods
• Underscore.js: Approximately 100 utility methods

Notable Lodash-Only Features:

• Advanced Collection Methods: Functions like groupBy, keyBy, orderBy, and sortBy with more sophisticated options
• Object Utilities: Deep cloneDeep, mergeDeep, cloneDeepWith, and similar methods
• Array Utilities: More comprehensive array manipulation functions
• String Utilities: Enhanced string processing capabilities
• Function Utilities: Debouncing, throttling, and memoization with more options
• Number Utilities: Mathematical and numeric operations
• Utility Functions: memoize, once, after, and similar helpers with advanced options

Chaining Support: Lodash provides superior chaining capabilities with more fluent interfaces and better method chaining syntax, making complex operations more readable and maintainable.

Documentation: Lodash boasts extensively organized documentation that makes it easier for developers to find and understand the information they need, as noted in the SQLPey analysis.

---

Factors Influencing Library Choice

Several key considerations should guide developers in choosing between Lodash and Underscore.js for their projects.

Project Requirements and Scale

Large Projects: For applications requiring extensive utility functions and complex data manipulations, Lodash’s comprehensive API provides significant advantages. The additional 200+ methods can eliminate the need for custom utility implementations.

Small Projects: For simple applications or projects with minimal utility needs, Underscore’s smaller footprint and focus on core functionality may be sufficient.

Performance Needs

High-Performance Applications: When runtime performance is critical, Lodash’s optimized algorithms provide measurable benefits, especially for data-intensive operations.

Bundle Size-Constrained Environments: For mobile applications or extremely size-sensitive projects, Underscore’s smaller base size (906kB) might be preferable unless tree-shaking can effectively reduce Lodash’s footprint.

Development Environment

Modern Tooling: Projects using ES modules, TypeScript, or modern bundlers like Webpack and Rollup benefit significantly from Lodash’s better integration with these technologies.

Legacy Systems: Older codebases or projects running in environments with limited ES module support might find Underscore simpler to integrate.

Team Considerations

Team Expertise: The learning curve and team familiarity should be considered - teams experienced with one library may prefer to continue using it for consistency.

Codebase Compatibility: When working with existing codebases, the switching cost between libraries may outweigh the benefits of migrating.

Ecosystem and Adoption

Popularity and Support: According to npm download statistics, Lodash has 70.3 million weekly downloads compared to Underscore’s 14.5 million, indicating stronger community support and more frequent updates.

Third-Party Integration: Many libraries and frameworks have better integration with Lodash due to its popularity and more comprehensive API.

---

Migration Considerations

For developers considering migrating between these libraries, several factors should guide the transition process.

Compatibility Considerations

While Lodash was designed as a superset of Underscore, some differences exist that may require code adjustments:

• Context Handling: Underscore’s functions may return results in slightly different contexts, especially when dealing with object methods
• Method Signatures: Some functions have different default parameters or behaviors
• Chaining Syntax: Lodash’s chaining is more robust and may behave differently in complex scenarios

The Moldstud guide provides helpful mappings: “For instance, Lodash’s _.map and Underscore’s _.map serve identical purposes, making this transition straightforward.”

Migration Strategies

1. Gradual Migration: Start by adding Lodash alongside Underscore and gradually replace functions
2. Testing: Comprehensive testing is essential to ensure consistent behavior
3. Performance Benchmarking: Measure performance before and after migration to validate improvements
4. Bundle Analysis: Use tools like Webpack Bundle Analyzer to verify bundle size changes

When to Migrate

Reasons to Migrate to Lodash:

• Need for better performance
• Requirement for advanced functionality not available in Underscore
• Modern JavaScript project requirements
• Tree-shaking benefits for bundle optimization

Reasons to Keep Underscore:

• Existing codebase heavily invested in Underscore
• Minimal utility requirements where Underscore suffices
• Bundle size constraints that can’t be addressed through tree-shaking
• Team expertise and preference for Underscore’s simplicity

Sources

1. Difference between lodash and Underscore - GeeksforGeeks
2. What is the difference between Underscore.js and Lodash? - Lemon.io
3. Underscore.js vs Lodash - Which Utility Library is Better for Your JavaScript Projects? - Moldstud
4. JavaScript evolution: From Lodash and Underscore to vanilla - LogRocket Blog
5. Underscore.js - Wikipedia
6. Top 4 Differences Between Lodash and Underscore.js Explained - SQLPey
7. Seamlessly Transition from Lodash to Underscore.js - Moldstud
8. Use Lodash Instead of Underscore - Joe Fleming

Conclusion

When choosing between Lodash and Underscore.js, developers should consider several key factors. Lodash offers superior performance, a more comprehensive API with over 300 methods, better modern JavaScript support including ES modules and tree-shaking capabilities, and improved handling of edge cases. However, Underscore.js provides a more minimal approach with a smaller bundle size (906kB vs Lodash’s 1.41MB) and sufficient functionality for many basic use cases.

For modern JavaScript projects, especially those using build tools that support tree-shaking, Lodash-es typically provides the best balance of performance and bundle size optimization. The performance advantages are significant - Lodash can be 35-50% faster than Underscore in most operations, with even greater improvements in deep cloning and large dataset handling.

Ultimately, the choice depends on your specific project requirements, existing codebase, team expertise, and performance needs. Lodash is generally the better choice for new projects, particularly those requiring advanced functionality or operating in performance-critical environments, while Underscore.js may still be appropriate for simple applications or legacy systems where its smaller footprint and simplicity are advantageous.