string-length vs lodash

Side-by-side — pricing, strengths, tradeoffs, and fit.

string-length

Get the real length of strings with astral symbols and ansi escape codes support.

lodash

lodash

At a glance

Open SourceFree Tier
● Established·From $0
· Not enough data·From $0

Overview

One-liner

Get the real length of strings with astral symbols and ansi escape codes support.

One-liner

lodash

Maturity

Established

Maturity

Not enough data

Open source

✓ Yes

Open source

✕ No

Pricing

Free tier

✓ Available

Open source — free to use

Free tier

✕ None

Starts at

$0

Starts at

$0

Model

Flat rate

Model

Flat rate

Enterprise

✕ None

Enterprise

✕ None

Best for

✓ Best for

JavaScript developers who need accurate string length calculation in their projects.
Projects dealing with internationalization where astral symbols are common.
Applications requiring consistent handling of strings across different platforms.

✓ Best for

—

Not ideal for

✕ Not for

Scenarios where performance is critical and the overhead of additional calculations cannot be tolerated.
Use cases that do not require consideration for astral symbols or ansi escape codes.

✕ Not for

—

Strengths

↑ Strengths

Correctly counts astral symbols in strings.
Ignores ansi escape codes for accurate length calculation.
Easy to integrate as a library.

↑ Strengths

—

Weaknesses

↓ Weaknesses

Limited language support
Small community and maintenance concerns
Potential performance overhead for large strings

↓ Weaknesses

Limited utility for modern JavaScript features
Performance overhead in simple use cases
Potential for bloated codebase
Full string-length profile →Full lodash profile →