How do I check if an array includes a value in JavaScript?

JavascriptArraysAlgorithmTime ComplexityJavascript Objects

Javascript Problem Overview

What is the most concise and efficient way to find out if a JavaScript array contains a value?

This is the only way I know to do it:

function contains(a, obj) {
    for (var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
        if (a[i] === obj) {
            return true;
    return false;

Is there a better and more concise way to accomplish this?

Javascript Solutions

Solution 1 - Javascript

Modern browsers have Array#includes, which does exactly that and is widely supported by everyone except IE:

console.log(['joe', 'jane', 'mary'].includes('jane')); //true

You can also use Array#indexOf, which is less direct, but doesn't require polyfills for outdated browsers.

console.log(['joe', 'jane', 'mary'].indexOf('jane') >= 0); //true

Many frameworks also offer similar methods:

Notice that some frameworks implement this as a function, while others add the function to the array prototype.

Solution 2 - Javascript

Update from 2019: This answer is from 2008 (11 years old!) and is not relevant for modern JS usage. The promised performance improvement was based on a benchmark done in browsers of that time. It might not be relevant to modern JS execution contexts. If you need an easy solution, look for other answers. If you need the best performance, benchmark for yourself in the relevant execution environments.

As others have said, the iteration through the array is probably the best way, but it has been proven that a decreasing while loop is the fastest way to iterate in JavaScript. So you may want to rewrite your code as follows:

function contains(a, obj) {
    var i = a.length;
    while (i--) {
       if (a[i] === obj) {
           return true;
    return false;

Of course, you may as well extend Array prototype:

Array.prototype.contains = function(obj) {
    var i = this.length;
    while (i--) {
        if (this[i] === obj) {
            return true;
    return false;

And now you can simply use the following:

alert([1, 2, 3].contains(2)); // => true
alert([1, 2, 3].contains('2')); // => false

Solution 3 - Javascript

indexOf maybe, but it's a "JavaScript extension to the ECMA-262 standard; as such it may not be present in other implementations of the standard."


[1, 2, 3].indexOf(1) => 0
["foo", "bar", "baz"].indexOf("bar") => 1
[1, 2, 3].indexOf(4) => -1

AFAICS Microsoft does not offer some kind of alternative to this, but you can add similar functionality to arrays in Internet Explorer (and other browsers that don't support indexOf) if you want to, as a quick Google search reveals (for example, this one).

Solution 4 - Javascript

The top answers assume primitive types but if you want to find out if an array contains an object with some trait, Array.prototype.some() is an elegant solution:

const items = [ {a: '1'}, {a: '2'}, {a: '3'} ]

items.some(item => item.a === '3')  // returns true
items.some(item => item.a === '4')  // returns false

The nice thing about it is that the iteration is aborted once the element is found so unnecessary iteration cycles are spared.

Also, it fits nicely in an if statement since it returns a boolean:

if (items.some(item => item.a === '3')) {
  // do something

* As jamess pointed out in the comment, at the time of this answer, September 2018, Array.prototype.some() is fully supported: support table

Solution 5 - Javascript

ECMAScript 7 introduces Array.prototype.includes.

It can be used like this:

[1, 2, 3].includes(2); // true
[1, 2, 3].includes(4); // false

It also accepts an optional second argument fromIndex:

[1, 2, 3].includes(3, 3); // false
[1, 2, 3].includes(3, -1); // true

Unlike indexOf, which uses Strict Equality Comparison, includes compares using SameValueZero equality algorithm. That means that you can detect if an array includes a NaN:

[1, 2, NaN].includes(NaN); // true

Also unlike indexOf, includes does not skip missing indices:

new Array(5).includes(undefined); // true

It can be polyfilled to make it work on all browsers.

Solution 6 - Javascript

Let's say you've defined an array like so:

const array = [1, 2, 3, 4]

Below are three ways of checking whether there is a 3 in there. All of them return either true or false.

Native Array method (since ES2016) (compatibility table)
array.includes(3) // true
As custom Array method (pre ES2016)
// Prefixing the method with '_' to avoid name clashes
Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, '_includes', { value: function (v) { return this.indexOf(v) !== -1 }})
array._includes(3) // true
Simple function
const includes = (a, v) => a.indexOf(v) !== -1
includes(array, 3) // true

Solution 7 - Javascript

Here's a JavaScript 1.6 compatible implementation of Array.indexOf:

if (!Array.indexOf) {
    Array.indexOf = [].indexOf ?
        function(arr, obj, from) {
            return arr.indexOf(obj, from);
        } :
        function(arr, obj, from) { // (for IE6)
            var l = arr.length,
                i = from ? parseInt((1 * from) + (from < 0 ? l : 0), 10) : 0;
            i = i < 0 ? 0 : i;
            for (; i < l; i++) {
                if (i in arr && arr[i] === obj) {
                    return i;
            return -1;

Solution 8 - Javascript


function isInArray(array, search)
    return array.indexOf(search) >= 0;

// Usage
if(isInArray(my_array, "my_value"))

Solution 9 - Javascript

Extending the JavaScript Array object is a really bad idea because you introduce new properties (your custom methods) into for-in loops which can break existing scripts. A few years ago the authors of the Prototype library had to re-engineer their library implementation to remove just this kind of thing.

If you don't need to worry about compatibility with other JavaScript running on your page, go for it, otherwise, I'd recommend the more awkward, but safer free-standing function solution.

Solution 10 - Javascript


Today 2020.01.07 I perform tests on MacOs HighSierra 10.13.6 on Chrome v78.0.0, Safari v13.0.4 and Firefox v71.0.0 for 15 chosen solutions. Conclusions

  • solutions based on JSON, Set and surprisingly find (K,N,O) are slowest on all browsers
  • the es6 includes (F) is fast only on chrome
  • the solutions based on for (C,D) and indexOf (G,H) are quite-fast on all browsers on small and big arrays so probably they are best choice for efficient solution
  • the solutions where index decrease during loop, (B) is slower probably because the way of CPU cache works.
  • I also run test for big array when searched element was on position 66% of array length, and solutions based on for (C,D,E) gives similar results (~630 ops/sec - but the E on safari and firefox was 10-20% slower than C and D)


enter image description here


I perform 2 tests cases: for array with 10 elements, and array with 1 milion elements. In both cases we put searched element in the array middle.

let log = (name,f) => console.log(`${name}: 3-${f(arr,'s10')}  's7'-${f(arr,'s7')}  6-${f(arr,6)} 's3'-${f(arr,'s3')}`)

let arr = [1,2,3,4,5,'s6','s7','s8','s9','s10'];
//arr = new Array(1000000).fill(123); arr[500000]=7;

function A(a, val) {
    var i = -1;
    var n = a.length;
    while (i++<n) {
       if (a[i] === val) {
           return true;
    return false;

function B(a, val) {
    var i = a.length;
    while (i--) {
       if (a[i] === val) {
           return true;
    return false;

function C(a, val) {
    for (var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
        if (a[i] === val) return true;
    return false;

function D(a,val)
    var len = a.length;
    for(var i = 0 ; i < len;i++)
        if(a[i] === val) return true;
    return false;

function E(a, val){  
  var n = a.length-1;
  var t = n/2;
  for (var i = 0; i <= t; i++) {
        if (a[i] === val || a[n-i] === val) return true;
  return false;

function F(a,val) {
	return a.includes(val);

function G(a,val) {
	return a.indexOf(val)>=0;

function H(a,val) {
	return !!~a.indexOf(val);

function I(a, val) {
  return a.findIndex(x=> x==val)>=0;

function J(a,val) {
	return a.some(x=> x===val);

function K(a, val) {
  const s = JSON.stringify(val);
  return a.some(x => JSON.stringify(x) === s);

function L(a,val) {
	return !a.every(x=> x!==val);

function M(a, val) {
  return !!a.find(x=> x==val);

function N(a,val) {
	return a.filter(x=>x===val).length > 0;

function O(a, val) {
  return new Set(a).has(val);


This shippet only presents functions used in performance tests - it not perform tests itself!

Array small - 10 elements

You can perform tests in your machine HERE

enter image description here

Array big - 1.000.000 elements

You can perform tests in your machine HERE

enter image description here

Solution 11 - Javascript


function contains(arr, x) {
    return arr.filter(function(elem) { return elem == x }).length > 0;

Solution 12 - Javascript

Thinking out of the box for a second, if you are making this call many many times, it is vastly more efficient to use an associative array a Map to do lookups using a hash function.

Solution 13 - Javascript

I use the following:

Array.prototype.contains = function (v) {
    return this.indexOf(v) > -1;

var a = [ 'foo', 'bar' ];

a.contains('foo'); // true
a.contains('fox'); // false

Solution 14 - Javascript

function contains(a, obj) {
    return a.some(function(element){return element == obj;})

Array.prototype.some() was added to the ECMA-262 standard in the 5th edition

Solution 15 - Javascript

If you are using JavaScript 1.6 or later (Firefox 1.5 or later) you can use Array.indexOf. Otherwise, I think you are going to end up with something similar to your original code.

Solution 16 - Javascript

A hopefully faster bidirectional indexOf / lastIndexOf alternative


While the new method includes is very nice, the support is basically zero for now.

It's a long time that I was thinking of a way to replace the slow indexOf/lastIndexOf functions.

A performant way has already been found, looking at the top answers. From those I chose the contains function posted by @Damir Zekic which should be the fastest one. But it also states that the benchmarks are from 2008 and so are outdated.

I also prefer while over for, but for not a specific reason I ended writing the function with a for loop. It could be also done with a while --.

I was curious if the iteration was much slower if I check both sides of the array while doing it. Apparently no, and so this function is around two times faster than the top voted ones. Obviously it's also faster than the native one. This is in a real world environment, where you never know if the value you are searching is at the beginning or at the end of the array.

When you know you just pushed an array with a value, using lastIndexOf remains probably the best solution, but if you have to travel through big arrays and the result could be everywhere, this could be a solid solution to make things faster.

Bidirectional indexOf/lastIndexOf

function bidirectionalIndexOf(a, b, c, d, e){
  for(c=a.length,d=c*1; c--; ){
    if(a[c]==b) return c; //or this[c]===b
    if(a[e=d-1-c]==b) return e; //or a[e=d-1-c]===b
  return -1

Performance test

As a test I created an array with 100k entries.

Three queries: at the beginning, in the middle & at the end of the array.

I hope you also find this interesting and test the performance.

Note: As you can see I slightly modified the contains function to reflect the indexOf & lastIndexOf output (so basically true with the index and false with -1). That shouldn't harm it.

The array prototype variant
  for(c=this.length,d=c*1; c--; ){
    if(this[c]==b) return c; //or this[c]===b
    if(this[e=d-1-c] == b) return e; //or this[e=d-1-c]===b
  return -1
},writable:false, enumerable:false});

// Usage

The function can also be easily modified to return true or false or even the object, string or whatever it is.

And here is the while variant:

function bidirectionalIndexOf(a, b, c, d){
  c=a.length; d=c-1;
    if(b===a[c]) return c;
    if(b===a[d-c]) return d-c;
  return c

// Usage
How is this possible?

I think that the simple calculation to get the reflected index in an array is so simple that it's two times faster than doing an actual loop iteration.

Here is a complex example doing three checks per iteration, but this is only possible with a longer calculation which causes the slowdown of the code.

Solution 17 - Javascript

function inArray(elem,array)
	var len = array.length;
	for(var i = 0 ; i < len;i++)
		if(array[i] == elem){return i;}
	return -1;

Returns array index if found, or -1 if not found

Solution 18 - Javascript

We use this snippet (works with objects, arrays, strings):

 * @function
 * @name Object.prototype.inArray
 * @description Extend Object prototype within inArray function
 * @param {mix}    needle       - Search-able needle
 * @param {bool}   searchInKey  - Search needle in keys?
Object.defineProperty(Object.prototype, 'inArray',{
    value: function(needle, searchInKey){

        var object = this;

        if( === '[object Object]' || 
   === '[object Array]'){
            needle = JSON.stringify(needle);

        return Object.keys(object).some(function(key){
            var value = object[key];

            if( === '[object Object]' || 
       === '[object Array]'){
                value = JSON.stringify(value);

                if(value === needle || key === needle){
                return true;
                if(value === needle){
                    return true;
    writable: true,
    configurable: true,
    enumerable: false


var a = {one: "first", two: "second", foo: {three: "third"}};
a.inArray("first");          //true
a.inArray("foo");            //false
a.inArray("foo", true);      //true - search by keys
a.inArray({three: "third"}); //true

var b = ["one", "two", "three", "four", {foo: 'val'}];
b.inArray("one");         //true
b.inArray('foo');         //false
b.inArray({foo: 'val'})   //true
b.inArray("{foo: 'val'}") //false

var c = "String";
c.inArray("S");        //true
c.inArray("s");        //false
c.inArray("2", true);  //true
c.inArray("20", true); //false

Solution 19 - Javascript

If you are checking repeatedly for existence of an object in an array you should maybe look into

  1. Keeping the array sorted at all times by doing insertion sort in your array (put new objects in on the right place)
  2. Make updating objects as remove+sorted insert operation and
  3. Use a binary search lookup in your contains(a, obj).

Solution 20 - Javascript

Solution that works in all modern browsers:

function contains(arr, obj) {
  const stringifiedObj = JSON.stringify(obj); // Cache our object to not call `JSON.stringify` on every iteration
  return arr.some(item => JSON.stringify(item) === stringifiedObj);


contains([{a: 1}, {a: 2}], {a: 1}); // true

IE6+ solution:

function contains(arr, obj) {
  var stringifiedObj = JSON.stringify(obj)
  return arr.some(function (item) {
    return JSON.stringify(item) === stringifiedObj;

// .some polyfill, not needed for IE9+
if (!('some' in Array.prototype)) {
  Array.prototype.some = function (tester, that /*opt*/) {
    for (var i = 0, n = this.length; i < n; i++) {
      if (i in this &&, this[i], i, this)) return true;
    } return false;


contains([{a: 1}, {a: 2}], {a: 1}); // true

Why to use JSON.stringify?

Array.indexOf and Array.includes (as well as most of the answers here) only compare by reference and not by value.

[{a: 1}, {a: 2}].includes({a: 1});
// false, because {a: 1} is a new object


Non-optimized ES6 one-liner:

[{a: 1}, {a: 2}].some(item => JSON.stringify(item) === JSON.stringify({a: 1));
// true

Note: Comparing objects by value will work better if the keys are in the same order, so to be safe you might sort the keys first with a package like this one:

Updated the contains function with a perf optimization. Thanks itinance for pointing it out.

Solution 21 - Javascript

Use lodash's some function.

It's concise, accurate and has great cross platform support.

The accepted answer does not even meet the requirements.

Requirements: Recommend most concise and efficient way to find out if a JavaScript array contains an object.

Accepted Answer:

$.inArray({'b': 2}, [{'a': 1}, {'b': 2}])
> -1

My recommendation:

_.some([{'a': 1}, {'b': 2}], {'b': 2})
> true


$.inArray works fine for determining whether a scalar value exists in an array of scalars...

$.inArray(2, [1,2])
> 1

... but the question clearly asks for an efficient way to determine if an object is contained in an array.

In order to handle both scalars and objects, you could do this:

(_.isObject(item)) ? _.some(ary, item) : (_.indexOf(ary, item) > -1)

Solution 22 - Javascript

Simple solution for this requirement is using find()

If you're having array of objects like below,

var users = [{id: "101", name: "Choose one..."},
{id: "102", name: "shilpa"},
{id: "103", name: "anita"},
{id: "104", name: "admin"},
{id: "105", name: "user"}];

Then you can check whether the object with your value is already present or not:

let data = users.find(object => object['id'] === '104');

if data is null then no admin, else it will return the existing object like:

{id: "104", name: "admin"}

Then you can find the index of that object in the array and replace the object using the code:

let indexToUpdate = users.indexOf(data);
let newObject = {id: "104", name: "customer"};
users[indexToUpdate] = newObject;//your new object

you will get value like:

[{id: "101", name: "Choose one..."},
{id: "102", name: "shilpa"},
{id: "103", name: "anita"},
{id: "104", name: "customer"},
{id: "105", name: "user"}];

Solution 23 - Javascript

While array.indexOf(x)!=-1 is the most concise way to do this (and has been supported by non-Internet Explorer browsers for over decade...), it is not O(1), but rather O(N), which is terrible. If your array will not be changing, you can convert your array to a hashtable, then do table[x]!==undefined or ===undefined:

Array.prototype.toTable = function() {
    var t = {};
    return t;


var toRemove = [2,4].toTable();
[1,2,3,4,5].filter(function(x){return toRemove[x]===undefined})

(Unfortunately, while you can create an Array.prototype.contains to "freeze" an array and store a hashtable in this._cache in two lines, this would give wrong results if you chose to edit your array later. JavaScript has insufficient hooks to let you keep this state, unlike Python for example.)

Solution 24 - Javascript

ECMAScript 6 has an elegant proposal on find.

> The find method executes the callback function once for each element > present in the array until it finds one where callback returns a true > value. If such an element is found, find immediately returns the value > of that element. Otherwise, find returns undefined. callback is > invoked only for indexes of the array which have assigned values; it > is not invoked for indexes which have been deleted or which have never > been assigned values.

Here is the MDN documentation on that.

The find functionality works like this.

function isPrime(element, index, array) {
    var start = 2;
    while (start <= Math.sqrt(element)) {
        if (element % start++ < 1) return false;
    return (element > 1);

console.log( [4, 6, 8, 12].find(isPrime) ); // Undefined, not found
console.log( [4, 5, 8, 12].find(isPrime) ); // 5

You can use this in ECMAScript 5 and below by defining the function.

if (!Array.prototype.find) {
  Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, 'find', {
    enumerable: false,
    configurable: true,
    writable: true,
    value: function(predicate) {
      if (this == null) {
        throw new TypeError('Array.prototype.find called on null or undefined');
      if (typeof predicate !== 'function') {
        throw new TypeError('predicate must be a function');
      var list = Object(this);
      var length = list.length >>> 0;
      var thisArg = arguments[1];
      var value;

      for (var i = 0; i < length; i++) {
        if (i in list) {
          value = list[i];
          if (, value, i, list)) {
            return value;
      return undefined;

Solution 25 - Javascript

One can use Set that has the method "has()":

function contains(arr, obj) {
      var proxy = new Set(arr);
      if (proxy.has(obj))
        return true;
        return false;

    var arr = ['Happy', 'New', 'Year'];
    console.log(contains(arr, 'Happy'));

Solution 26 - Javascript


var myArray = ['yellow', 'orange', 'red'] ;

alert(!!~myArray.indexOf('red')); //true


To know exactly what the tilde ~ do at this point, refer to this question What does a tilde do when it precedes an expression?.

Solution 27 - Javascript

OK, you can just optimise your code to get the result!

There are many ways to do this which are cleaner and better, but I just wanted to get your pattern and apply to that using JSON.stringify, just simply do something like this in your case:

function contains(a, obj) {
    for (var i = 0; i < a.length; i++) {
        if (JSON.stringify(a[i]) === JSON.stringify(obj)) {
            return true;
    return false;

Solution 28 - Javascript

Surprised that this question still doesn't have latest syntax added, adding my 2 cents.

Let's say we have array of Objects arrObj and we want to search obj in it.

Array.prototype.indexOf -> (returns index or -1) is generally used for finding index of element in array. This can also be used for searching object but only works if you are passing reference to same object.

let obj = { name: 'Sumer', age: 36 };
let arrObj = [obj, { name: 'Kishor', age: 46 }, { name: 'Rupen', age: 26 }];

console.log(arrObj.indexOf(obj));// 0
console.log(arrObj.indexOf({ name: 'Sumer', age: 36 })); //-1

console.log([1, 3, 5, 2].indexOf(2)); //3

Array.prototype.includes -> (returns true or false)

console.log(arrObj.includes(obj));  //true
console.log(arrObj.includes({ name: 'Sumer', age: 36 })); //false

console.log([1, 3, 5, 2].includes(2)); //true

Array.prototype.find -> (takes callback, returns first value/object that returns true in CB).

console.log(arrObj.find(e => e.age > 40));  //{ name: 'Kishor', age: 46 }
console.log(arrObj.find(e => e.age > 40)); //{ name: 'Kishor', age: 46 }

console.log([1, 3, 5, 2].find(e => e > 2)); //3

Array.prototype.findIndex -> (takes callback, returns index of first value/object that returns true in CB).

console.log(arrObj.findIndex(e => e.age > 40));  //1
console.log(arrObj.findIndex(e => e.age > 40)); //1

console.log([1, 3, 5, 2].findIndex(e => e > 2)); //1

Since find and findIndex takes a callback, we can be fetch any object(even if we don't have the reference) from array by creatively setting the true condition.

Solution 29 - Javascript

By no means the best, but I was just getting creative and adding to the repertoire.

Do not use this

Object.defineProperty(Array.prototype, 'exists', {
  value: function(element, index) {

    var index = index || 0

    return index === this.length ? -1 : this[index] === element ? index : this.exists(element, ++index)

// Outputs 1
console.log(['one', 'two'].exists('two'));

// Outputs -1
console.log(['one', 'two'].exists('three'));

console.log(['one', 'two', 'three', 'four'].exists('four'));

Solution 30 - Javascript

It has one parameter: an array numbers of objects. Each object in the array has two integer properties denoted by x and y. The function must return a count of all such objects in the array that satisfy numbers.x == numbers.y

var numbers = [ { x: 1, y: 1 },
                { x: 2, y: 3 },
                { x: 3, y: 3 },
                { x: 3, y: 4 },
                { x: 4, y: 5 } ];
var count = 0; 
var n = numbers.length;
for (var i =0;i<n;i++)


Solution 31 - Javascript

    function countArray(originalArray) {
    	var compressed = [];
    	// make a copy of the input array
    	var copyArray = originalArray.slice(0);
    	// first loop goes over every element
    	for (var i = 0; i < originalArray.length; i++) {
    		var count = 0;	
    		// loop over every element in the copy and see if it's the same
    		for (var w = 0; w < copyArray.length; w++) {
    			if (originalArray[i] == copyArray[w]) {
    				// increase amount of times duplicate is found
    				// sets item to undefined
    				delete copyArray[w];
    		if (count > 0) {
    			var a = new Object();
    			a.value = originalArray[i];
    			a.count = count;
    	return compressed;
    // It should go something like this:
    var testArray = new Array("dog", "dog", "cat", "buffalo", "wolf", "cat", "tiger", "cat");
    var newArray = countArray(testArray);

Solution 32 - Javascript

use Array.prototype.includes for example:

const fruits = ['coconut', 'banana', 'apple']

const doesFruitsHaveCoconut = fruits.includes('coconut')// true


maybe read this documentation from MDN:

Solution 33 - Javascript

Here's how Prototype does it:

 *  Array#indexOf(item[, offset = 0]) -> Number
 *  - item (?): A value that may or may not be in the array.
 *  - offset (Number): The number of initial items to skip before beginning the
 *      search.
 *  Returns the position of the first occurrence of `item` within the array &mdash; or
 *  `-1` if `item` doesn't exist in the array.
function indexOf(item, i) {
  i || (i = 0);
  var length = this.length;
  if (i < 0) i = length + i;
  for (; i < length; i++)
    if (this[i] === item) return i;
  return -1;

Also see here for how they hook it up.

Solution 34 - Javascript

You can also use this trick:

var arrayContains = function(object) {
  return (serverList.filter(function(currentObject) {
    if (currentObject === object) {
      return currentObject
    else {
      return false;
  }).length > 0) ? true : false

Solution 35 - Javascript

  1. Either use Array.indexOf(Object).
  2. With ECMA 7 one can use the Array.includes(Object).
  3. With ECMA 6 you can use Array.find(FunctionName) where FunctionName is a user defined function to search for the object in the array.

Hope this helps!

Solution 36 - Javascript

Use indexOf()

You can use the indexOf() method to check whether a given value or element exists in an array or not. The indexOf() method returns the index of the element inside the array if it is found, and returns -1 if it not found. Let's take a look at the following example:

var fruits = ["Apple", "Banana", "Mango", "Orange", "Papaya"];
var a = "Mango";
checkArray(a, fruits);

function checkArray(a, fruits) {
  // Check if a value exists in the fruits array
  if (fruits.indexOf(a) !== -1) {
    return document.write("true");
  } else {
    return document.write("false");

Use include() Method

ES6 has introduced the includes() method to perform this task very easily. But, this method returns only true or false instead of index number:

var fruits = ["Apple", "Banana", "Mango", "Orange", "Papaya"];
alert(fruits.includes("Banana")); // Outputs: true
alert(fruits.includes("Coconut")); // Outputs: false
alert(fruits.includes("Orange")); // Outputs: true
alert(fruits.includes("Cherry")); // Outputs: false

For further reference checkout here

Solution 37 - Javascript


Array.prototype.contains = function(x){
  var retVal = -1;

  // x is a primitive type
  if(["string","number"].indexOf(typeof x)>=0 ){ retVal = this.indexOf(x);}

  // x is a function
  else if(typeof x =="function") for(var ix in this){
    if((this[ix]+"")==(x+"")) retVal = ix;

  //x is an object...
  else {
    var sx=JSON.stringify(x);
    for(var ix in this){
      if(typeof this[ix] =="object" && JSON.stringify(this[ix])==sx) retVal = ix;

  //Return False if -1 else number if numeric otherwise string
  return (retVal === -1)?false : ( isNaN(+retVal) ? retVal : +retVal);

I know it's not the best way to go, but since there is no native IComparable way to interact between objects, I guess this is as close as you can get to compare two entities in an array. Also, extending Array object might not be a wise thing to do, but sometimes it's OK (if you are aware of it and the trade-off).

Solution 38 - Javascript

Or this solution:

Array.prototype.includes = function (object) {
  return !!+~this.indexOf(object);

Solution 39 - Javascript

If you're working with ES6 You can use a set:

function arrayHas( array, element ) {
    const s = new Set(array);
    return s.has(element)

This should be more performant than just about any other method

Solution 40 - Javascript

I recommended to use underscore library because its return the value and its supported for all browsers.


 var findValue = _.find(array, function(item) {
    return ==;

Solution 41 - Javascript

Adding a unique item to a another list

searchResults: [
                    name: 'Hello',
                    artist: 'Selana',
                    album: 'Riga',
                    id: 1,
                    name: 'Hello;s',
                    artist: 'Selana G',
                    album: 'Riga1',
                    id: 2,
                    name: 'Hello2',
                    artist: 'Selana',
                    album: 'Riga11',
                    id: 3,
            playlistTracks: [
                name: 'Hello',
                artist: 'Mamunuus',
                album: 'Riga',
                id: 4,
                name: 'Hello;s',
                artist: 'Mamunuus G',
                album: 'Riga1',
                id: 2,
                name: 'Hello2',
                artist: 'Mamunuus New',
                album: 'Riga11',
                id: 3,
            playlistName: "New PlayListTrack",

    // Adding an unique track in the playList
    addTrack = track => {
      if(playlistTracks.find(savedTrack => === {


Solution 42 - Javascript

There are a couple of method which makes this easy to achieve (includes, some, find, findIndex)

const array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7];

console.log(array.includes(3)); //includes() determines whether an array includes a certain value among its entries

console.log(array.some(x => x === 3)); 

//some() tests if at least one element in the array passes the test implemented by the provided function

console.log(array.find(x => x === 3) ? true : false);

//find() returns the value of the first element in the provided array that satisfies the provided testing function

console.log(array.findIndex(x => x === 3) > -1);

//findIndex() returns the index of the first element in the array that satisfies the provided testing function, else returning -1.

Solution 43 - Javascript

As others have mentioned you can use Array.indexOf, but it isn't available in all browsers. Here's the code from to make it work the same in older browsers.

> indexOf is a recent addition to the ECMA-262 standard; as such it may > not be present in all browsers. You can work around this by inserting > the following code at the beginning of your scripts, allowing use of > indexOf in implementations which do not natively support it. This > algorithm is exactly the one specified in ECMA-262, 5th edition, > assuming Object, TypeError, Number, Math.floor, Math.abs, and Math.max > have their original value.

if (!Array.prototype.indexOf) {
    Array.prototype.indexOf = function (searchElement /*, fromIndex */ ) {
        "use strict";
        if (this == null) {
            throw new TypeError();
        var t = Object(this);
        var len = t.length >>> 0;
        if (len === 0) {
            return -1;
        var n = 0;
        if (arguments.length > 1) {
            n = Number(arguments[1]);
            if (n != n) { // shortcut for verifying if it's NaN
                n = 0;
            } else if (n != 0 && n != Infinity && n != -Infinity) {
                n = (n > 0 || -1) * Math.floor(Math.abs(n));
        if (n >= len) {
            return -1;
        var k = n >= 0 ? n : Math.max(len - Math.abs(n), 0);
        for (; k < len; k++) {
            if (k in t && t[k] === searchElement) {
                return k;
        return -1;

Solution 44 - Javascript

Using idnexOf() it is a good solution, but you should hide embedded implementation indexOf() function which returns -1 with ~ operator:

function include(arr,obj) { 
	return !!(~arr.indexOf(obj)); 

Solution 45 - Javascript

I was working on a project that I needed a functionality like python set which removes all duplicates values and returns a new list, so I wrote this function maybe useful to someone

function set(arr) {
    var res = [];
    for (var i = 0; i < arr.length; i++) {
	    if (res.indexOf(arr[i]) === -1) {
    return res;

Solution 46 - Javascript

In Addition to what others said, if you don't have a reference of the object which you want to search in the array, then you can do something like this.

let array = [1, 2, 3, 4, {"key": "value"}];

array.some((element) => JSON.stringify(element) === JSON.stringify({"key": "value"})) // true

array.some((element) => JSON.stringify(element) === JSON.stringify({})) // true

Array.some returns true if any element matches the given condition and returns false if none of the elements matches the given condition.

Solution 47 - Javascript

Object.keys for getting all property names of the object and filter all values that exact or partial match with specified string.

function filterByValue(array, string) {
  return array.filter(o =>
    Object.keys(o).some(k => o[k].toLowerCase().includes(string.toLowerCase())));

const arrayOfObject = [{
  name: 'Paul',
  country: 'Canada',
}, {
  name: 'Lea',
  country: 'Italy',
}, {
  name: 'John',
  country: 'Italy'

console.log(filterByValue(arrayOfObject, 'lea')); // [{name: 'Lea', country: 'Italy'}]
console.log(filterByValue(arrayOfObject, 'ita')); // [{name: 'Lea', country: 'Italy'}, {name: 'John', country: 'Italy'}]

You can also filter by specific key such as.

Object.keys(o).some(k =>;

Now you can just check array count after filtered to check value contains or not.

Hope it's helpful.

Solution 48 - Javascript

This may be a detailed and easy solution.

//plain array
var arr = ['a', 'b', 'c'];
var check = arr.includes('a');
console.log(check); //returns true
if (check)
   // value exists in array
   //write some codes

// array with objects
var arr = [
      {x:'a', y:'b'},
      {x:'p', y:'q'}

// if you want to check if x:'p' exists in arr
var check = arr.filter(function (elm){
    if (elm.x == 'p')
       return elm; // returns length = 1 (object exists in array)

// or y:'q' exists in arr
var check = arr.filter(function (elm){
    if (elm.y == 'q')
       return elm; // returns length = 1 (object exists in array)

// if you want to check, if the entire object {x:'p', y:'q'} exists in arr
var check = arr.filter(function (elm){
    if (elm.x == 'p' && elm.y == 'q')
       return elm; // returns length = 1 (object exists in array)

// in all cases
console.log(check.length); // returns 1

if (check.length > 0)
   // returns true
   // object exists in array
   //write some codes

Solution 49 - Javascript

The best default method to check if value exist in array JavaScript is some()


The some() method tests whether at least one element in the array passes the test implemented by the provided function. It returns true if, in the array, it finds an element for which the provided function returns true; otherwise it returns false. It doesn't modify the array.

const array = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];

// checks whether an element is even
const even = (element) => element % 2 === 0;

// expected output: true

The some method is the best one in Browser compatibility Browser compatibility

For more documentation Array.prototype.some() - JavaScript | MDN

Also you can use other two method is find() and includes(). with those method you can get your result but not the best one.

Array.prototype.find() - JavaScript | MDN

Array.prototype.includes() - JavaScript | MDN

Solution 50 - Javascript

Similar thing: Finds the first element by a "search lambda":

Array.prototype.find = function(search_lambda) {
  return this[];


[1,3,4,5,8,3,5].find(function(item) { return item % 2 == 0 })
=> 4

Same in coffeescript:

Array.prototype.find = (search_lambda) -> @[@map(search_lambda).indexOf(true)]

Solution 51 - Javascript

I looked through submitted answers and got that they only apply if you search for the object via reference. A simple linear search with reference object comparison.

But lets say you don't have the reference to an object, how will you find the correct object in the array? You will have to go linearly and deep compare with each object. Imagine if the list is too large, and the objects in it are very big containing big pieces of text. The performance drops drastically with the number and size of the elements in the array.

You can stringify objects and put them in the native hash table, but then you will have data redundancy remembering these keys cause JavaScript keeps them for 'for i in obj', and you only want to check if the object exists or not, that is, you have the key.

I thought about this for some time constructing a JSON Schema validator, and I devised a simple wrapper for the native hash table, similar to the sole hash table implementation, with some optimization exceptions which I left to the native hash table to deal with. It only needs performance benchmarking... All the details and code can be found on my blog: I will soon post benchmark results.

The complete solution works like this:

var a = {'a':1,
 'd':{'q':1, 'b':{'q':1, 'b':8},'c':4},

 var b = {'a':1, 

 var c = "Lorem Ipsum is simply dummy text of the printing and typesetting industry. Lorem Ipsum has been the industry's standard dummy text ever since the 1500s, when an unknown printer took a galley of type and scrambled it to make a type specimen book. It has survived not only five centuries, but also the leap into electronic typesetting, remaining essentially unchanged. It was popularised in the 1960s with the release of Letraset sheets containing Lorem Ipsum passages, and more recently with desktop publishing software like Aldus PageMaker including versions of Lorem Ipsum.";
 var hc = new HashCache([{a:3, b:2, c:5}, {a:15, b:2, c:'foo'}]); //init
 hc.put({a:1, b:1});
 hc.put({b:1, a:1});
 console.log(hc.exists({b:1, a:1}));

Solution 52 - Javascript

> Simple solution : ES6 Features "includes" method

let arr = [1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4];

  arr.includes(2) // true

  arr.includes(93) // false

Solution 53 - Javascript

Using RegExp:

console.log(new RegExp('26242').test(['23525', '26242', '25272'].join(''))) // true

Solution 54 - Javascript

You can use findIndex function to check if an array has a specific value.

arrObj.findIndex(obj => obj === comparedValue) !== -1;

Returns true if arrObj contains comparedValue, false otherwise.

Solution 55 - Javascript


(using Firefox v3.6, with for-in caveats as previously noted (HOWEVER the use below might endorse for-in for this very purpose! That is, enumerating array elements that ACTUALLY exist via a property index (HOWEVER, in particular, the array length property is NOT enumerated in the for-in property list!).).)

(Drag & drop the following complete URI's for immediate mode browser testing.)

  function ObjInRA(ra){var has=false; for(i in ra){has=true; break;} return has;}

  function check(ra){
      return ['There is ',ObjInRA(ra)?'an':'NO',' object in [',ra,'].'].join('')
            check([{}]), check([]), check([,2,3]),
            check(['']), '\t (a null string)', check([,,,])

which displays:

There is an object in [[object Object]].
There is NO object in [].
There is an object in [,2,3].
There is an object in [].
     (a null string)
There is NO object in [,,].

Wrinkles: if looking for a "specific" object consider:

JavaScript: alert({}!={}); alert({}!=={});

And thus:

 obj = {prop:"value"}; 
 ra1 = [obj]; 
 ra2 = [{prop:"value"}];
 alert(ra1[0] == obj); 
 alert(ra2[0] == obj);

Often ra2 is considered to "contain" obj as the literal entity {prop:"value"}.

A very coarse, rudimentary, naive (as in code needs qualification enhancing) solution:

  obj={prop:"value"};   ra2=[{prop:"value"}];
    ra2 . toSource() . indexOf( obj.toSource().match(/^.(.*).$/)[1] ) != -1 ?
      'found' :
      'missing' );

See ref: Searching for objects in JavaScript arrays.

Solution 56 - Javascript

Just another option

// usage: if ( ['a','b','c','d'].contains('b') ) { ... }
Array.prototype.contains = function(value){
    for (var key in this)
        if (this[key] === value) return true;
    return false;

Be careful because overloading javascript array objects with custom methods can disrupt the behavior of other javascripts, causing unexpected behavior.


All content for this solution is sourced from the original question on Stackoverflow.

The content on this page is licensed under the Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.

Content TypeOriginal AuthorOriginal Content on Stackoverflow
QuestionbradView Question on Stackoverflow
Solution 1 - JavascriptcodeapeView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 2 - JavascriptDamir ZekićView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 3 - JavascriptcicView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 4 - JavascriptMichaelView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 5 - JavascriptOriolView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 6 - Javascriptwilliam maloView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 7 - JavascriptMár ÖrlygssonView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 8 - JavascriptMatías CánepaView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 9 - JavascriptMason HoutzView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 10 - JavascriptKamil KiełczewskiView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 11 - JavascriptAlonLView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 12 - JavascriptMattMcKnightView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 13 - JavascriptEduardo CuomoView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 14 - JavascriptdansalmoView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 15 - JavascriptAndru LuvisiView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 16 - JavascriptcoccoView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 17 - JavascriptLemexView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 18 - Javascriptdr.dimitruView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 19 - JavascriptZtyxView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 20 - JavascriptIgor BarbashinView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 21 - Javascriptl3xView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 22 - JavascriptShivaView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 23 - JavascriptninjageckoView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 24 - JavascriptPradeep MahdevuView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 25 - JavascriptrlibView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 26 - JavascriptMina GabrielView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 27 - JavascriptAlirezaView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 28 - JavascriptSumerView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 29 - JavascriptsqramView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 30 - JavascriptMitul PanchalView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 31 - JavascriptSanjay MagarView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 32 - Javascriptda coconutView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 33 - JavascriptKenView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 34 - Javascriptuser2724028View Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 35 - JavascriptKrishna GaneriwalView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 36 - JavascriptRiwaj ChaliseView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 37 - JavascriptCarlos AView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 38 - JavascriptMaxime HelenView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 39 - JavascriptNeil GirardiView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 40 - JavascriptDurgpal SinghView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 41 - JavascriptMamunur RashidView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 42 - JavascriptRan TurnerView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 43 - JavascriptSimon_WeaverView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 44 - JavascriptKRRySSView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 45 - JavascriptJeevaView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 46 - JavascriptNitesh RanjanView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 47 - JavascriptMajedurView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 48 - JavascriptMd. Harun Or RashidView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 49 - JavascriptMed Aziz CHETOUIView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 50 - JavascriptAndy RohrView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 51 - JavascriptstamatView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 52 - JavascriptShashwat GuptaView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 53 - JavascriptfrancisView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 54 - JavascriptMsiLuciferView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 55 - JavascriptEkimView Answer on Stackoverflow
Solution 56 - JavascriptDennis AllenView Answer on Stackoverflow