Worksheetfunction vs UDF

Posted on February 23, 2008 by dougaj4

The previous post provided VBA code for a number of trigonometric functions, most of which are already available in Excel.  Why bother you may say, why not just use the WorksheetFunction object?  The numbers below provide the answer:

Time to calculate ATan2() 65,536 x 16 times

XL2007

XL2000
VBA ATn2() 

1.60

1.21

Worksheetfunction

14.20

3.06

With Excel 2007 using a UDF in preference to Worksheetfunction gives a speed improvement of almost 10 times.  With Excel 2000 the difference is not so dramatic, but still a worthwhile 2.5 times improvement.

Filed under: Excel, UDFs | Tagged:

« Trignometric Functions in VBA The history of the theory of beam bending - Part 1 »

5 Responses to “Worksheetfunction vs UDF”

  1. mrt, on February 26th, 2008 at 6:46 am Said:

    Being picky -

    But not for spellers: An Excel blog for engineers and scientists, and an ->egineering<- and science blog for Excel users.

  2. dougaj4, on February 26th, 2008 at 12:31 pm Said:

    mrt - OK, fixed.

    And congratulations on getting the first comment in :)

  3. mrt, on February 27th, 2008 at 1:40 am Said:

    Hi Doug -

    I followed the link here from Daily Dose of Excel, and I’ll be back, for I’m definitely not one of those $$$ guys.

    I really like your concept.

    …mrt

  4. Excel 2007 performance - feedback please « Newton Excel Bach, not (just) an Excel Blog, on May 6th, 2008 at 11:11 pm Said:

    [...] Worksheetfunction vs UDF [...]

  5. Worksheetfunction vs UDF - 2 « Newton Excel Bach, not (just) an Excel Blog, on May 24th, 2008 at 1:24 pm Said:

    [...] Worksheetfunction vs UDF - 2 Filed under: Excel, UDFs — Tags: Excel 2007 performance, UDF, Worksheetfunction — dougaj4 @ 1:24 pm Previous Post [...]

Leave a Reply