Presumably because LokiJS is faster. (I don't know if that's actually true.) And no, I just looked at the source code and Loki does not use localStorage under t

Presumably because LokiJS is faster. (I don't know if that's actually true.) And no, I just looked at the source code and Loki does not use localStorage under the hood. It's an in-memory database without a persistence layer, so you lose the data when you leave the page (in the browser). Edit: Actually, reading more about Loki, it looks like the whole point of it is to provide querying/indexing capabilities to data in memory. So I don't know if there would be any value in using it as a replacement for key/value stores.