Yes, you are right, it is O(n) where n - length of list. Look here for more information: https://www.ics.uci.edu/~pattis/ICS-33/lectures/complexitypython.txt

Answer from Serenity on Stack Overflow
🌐
Stack Overflow
stackoverflow.com › questions › 37606159 › what-is-the-time-complexity-of-python-list-reverse
What is the time complexity of Python List Reverse? - Stack Overflow
Top answer
1 of 4
39

Yes, you are right, it is O(n) where n - length of list. Look here for more information: https://www.ics.uci.edu/~pattis/ICS-33/lectures/complexitypython.txt

2 of 4
37

If you look into the implementation of the reverse method here, then it looks as follows:

static PyObject *
listreverse(PyListObject *self)
{
    if (Py_SIZE(self) > 1)
        reverse_slice(self->ob_item, self->ob_item + Py_SIZE(self));
    Py_RETURN_NONE;
}

So, the operation is actually delegated to reverse_slice. Then, let's look into it:

static void
reverse_slice(PyObject **lo, PyObject **hi)
{
    assert(lo && hi);

    --hi;
    while (lo < hi) {
        PyObject *t = *lo;
        *lo = *hi;
        *hi = t;
        ++lo;
        --hi;
    }
}

So, here are 2 indices initially set at the start and end of the list. Then, at each iteration of while loop, elements at respective indices are swapped:

PyObject *t = *lo;
*lo = *hi;
*hi = t;

And then the left index gets incremented and the right one decremented:

++lo;
--hi;

The loop goes on as long as the right index exceeds the left one. So, if there're n elements in the list, then there will be performed n/2 iterations and hence the time complexity is O(n)

🌐
Reddit
reddit.com › r/algorithms › time complexity of python a[::-1]
r/algorithms on Reddit: Time complexity of Python a[::-1]
November 29, 2020 -

a[::-1] traverse array a of size n in backward order. What'd be the time complexity of this?

Top answer
1 of 1
12
A previously present answer of O(n) is the only one here, and while I agree that it is a sane answer, I've done some benchmarking in iPython and it seems that a[::-1] is significantly slower than using the reversed() builtin: In [14]: a = list(range(0, 1000000)) In [15]: %timeit a[::-1] 4.85 ms ± 41.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each) In [16]: %timeit reversed(a) 70.6 ns ± 0.592 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each) This leads me to believe that using the stepped slice operator isn't "smart" enough to use a typical reversing algorithm. Tested with Python v3.8.5 and iPython v7.13.0 Edit: A big thank you to all the comments below showing the flaw in my calculations. Reversed does indeed return an iterator. For those not versed in Python, this means that the reversed result is not an in-memory list, but is instead a code-only representation of the list that can be interacted with as if the list existed (to a degree, there are things iterators cannot do). Since Python doesn't need to read list a to create the iterator, we've failed to test the run time of creating a reversed list using this method. I have repeated my benchmarks but instead forced a list to be constructed of the reversed iterator. Following on from u/spyr03 's comment, I have also used three sizes of list and included the creation of a copy without reversing in order to make a deduction on the complexity used in each method. The results: In [1]: a = list(range(0, 1_000_000)) In [2]: b = list(range(0, 10_000_000)) In [3]: c = list(range(0, 100_000_000)) In [4]: %timeit list(a) 4.82 ms ± 82.1 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each) In [5]: %timeit a[::-1] 4.53 ms ± 44.8 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each) In [7]: %timeit list(reversed(a)) 6.68 ms ± 166 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each) In [8]: %timeit list(b) 58.1 ms ± 165 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each) In [9]: %timeit b[::-1] 57.4 ms ± 146 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each) In [10]: %timeit list(reversed(b)) 82.6 ms ± 681 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each) In [11]: %timeit list(c) 723 ms ± 32.7 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each) In [12]: %timeit c[::-1] 749 ms ± 11.6 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each) In [13]: %timeit list(reversed(c)) 958 ms ± 36.1 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each) Conclusions that can be made: reversed() is consistently slower than a straight copy and a reversed copy using slicing. My suspicion is that this is caused by overhead of the iterator. A straight copy and a sliced reverse copy take approximately the same amount of time. Increasing the list size by 10 increases the run-time of each method by approximately 10. We can therefore deduce that all three methods have a runtime of O(n), with the reversed() operator having a larger constant factor than the other methods.
Discussions
Time complexity of reversed() in Python 3 - Stack Overflow
What is the time complexity of reversed() in Python 3? I think the answer would be O(1) but I want to clarify whether it is right or wrong. More on stackoverflow.com
🌐 stackoverflow.com
python - Does looping through a reversed(list) add to the time complexity of my function? - Stack Overflow
Short but simple question. I have been studying time complexity for a coding interview and I can not find a concise answer to this. I am aware that this question exists on SO. What is the time complexity of Python List Reverse?. More on stackoverflow.com
🌐 stackoverflow.com
Time complexity of Python a[::-1]
A previously present answer of O(n) is the only one here, and while I agree that it is a sane answer, I've done some benchmarking in iPython and it seems that a[::-1] is significantly slower than using the reversed() builtin: In [14]: a = list(range(0, 1000000)) In [15]: %timeit a[::-1] 4.85 ms ± 41.4 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each) In [16]: %timeit reversed(a) 70.6 ns ± 0.592 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10000000 loops each) This leads me to believe that using the stepped slice operator isn't "smart" enough to use a typical reversing algorithm. Tested with Python v3.8.5 and iPython v7.13.0 Edit: A big thank you to all the comments below showing the flaw in my calculations. Reversed does indeed return an iterator. For those not versed in Python, this means that the reversed result is not an in-memory list, but is instead a code-only representation of the list that can be interacted with as if the list existed (to a degree, there are things iterators cannot do). Since Python doesn't need to read list a to create the iterator, we've failed to test the run time of creating a reversed list using this method. I have repeated my benchmarks but instead forced a list to be constructed of the reversed iterator. Following on from u/spyr03 's comment, I have also used three sizes of list and included the creation of a copy without reversing in order to make a deduction on the complexity used in each method. The results: In [1]: a = list(range(0, 1_000_000)) In [2]: b = list(range(0, 10_000_000)) In [3]: c = list(range(0, 100_000_000)) In [4]: %timeit list(a) 4.82 ms ± 82.1 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each) In [5]: %timeit a[::-1] 4.53 ms ± 44.8 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each) In [7]: %timeit list(reversed(a)) 6.68 ms ± 166 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each) In [8]: %timeit list(b) 58.1 ms ± 165 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each) In [9]: %timeit b[::-1] 57.4 ms ± 146 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each) In [10]: %timeit list(reversed(b)) 82.6 ms ± 681 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each) In [11]: %timeit list(c) 723 ms ± 32.7 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each) In [12]: %timeit c[::-1] 749 ms ± 11.6 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each) In [13]: %timeit list(reversed(c)) 958 ms ± 36.1 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1 loop each) Conclusions that can be made: reversed() is consistently slower than a straight copy and a reversed copy using slicing. My suspicion is that this is caused by overhead of the iterator. A straight copy and a sliced reverse copy take approximately the same amount of time. Increasing the list size by 10 increases the run-time of each method by approximately 10. We can therefore deduce that all three methods have a runtime of O(n), with the reversed() operator having a larger constant factor than the other methods. More on reddit.com
🌐 r/algorithms
14
19
November 29, 2020
Why is list.reverse() an O(n) operation?
Well, because it's an in-place operation on a list (not an array). Indexing tricks work great up until the next append operation or similar. There's the built-in reversed which gives you a reverse-order iterator (and as such is O(1), naturally). More on reddit.com
🌐 r/learnpython
12
8
April 7, 2022
🌐
Unstop
unstop.com › home › blog › reversing python list | 10 ways explained with code examples
Python Reverse List | 10 Ways & Complexity Analysis ...
February 3, 2025 - To help you choose the best approach, let's compare the methods we discussed and analyze their complexities. Let’s discuss what this table indicates in reference to the worst and best methods for Python list reversal. ... reverse() Method: This is the most efficient in terms of time and space if you need to modify the list in place.
🌐
Stack Overflow
stackoverflow.com › questions › 65540349 › time-complexity-of-reversed-in-python-3 › 65540530
Time complexity of reversed() in Python 3 - Stack Overflow
Top answer
1 of 1
6

reversed(some_list) always takes about 120ns to finish on my machine, which is a clear sign of O(1) time complexity. This is because this function does not actually change any values, it just returns a list_reverseiterator, which iterates the list backwards. This object is very similar to a normal generator, as it its elements get consumed, when you are, for example, calling list on it:

In [10]: a = [i for i in range(5)]

In [11]: b = reversed(a)

In [12]: b
Out[12]: <list_reverseiterator at 0x7f11fe3615b0>

In [13]: list(b)
Out[13]: [4, 3, 2, 1, 0]

In [14]: b
Out[14]: <list_reverseiterator at 0x7f11fe3615b0>

In [15]: list(b)
Out[15]: []
🌐
Cherry Servers
cherryservers.com › home › blog › python › how to reverse a list in python (using 3 simple ways)
How to Reverse a List in Python (Using 3 Simple Ways) | Cherry Servers
November 7, 2025 - This means they all require a linear amount of time relative to the list size. This refers to the additional memory used by the algorithm. reverse() Method: The space complexity is O(1), which is optimal for memory usage.
🌐
Mimo
mimo.org › glossary › python › list-reverse-method
Python List reverse() Method: Syntax, Methods, and Examples
Python · Open in Mimo · Open in Mimo · Copy Code · letters = ['a', 'b', 'c'] print("Before:", letters) letters.reverse() print("After:", letters) # Output: ['c', 'b', 'a'] The reverse() method is fast and memory efficient since it doesn’t create a new list. Time Complexity: O(n) Space ...
🌐
Finxter
blog.finxter.com › python-list-reverse
Python List reverse() – Be on the Right Side of Change
March 21, 2020 - ... Here’s your free PDF cheat sheet showing you all Python list methods on one simple page. Click the image to download the high-resolution PDF file, print it, and post it to your office wall: ... The time complexity of the reverse() operation is O(n) for a list with n elements.
🌐
Medium
medium.com › @khasnobis.sanjit890 › reversing-an-array-in-python-without-using-additional-memory-and-in-o-n-linear-time-complexity-b421a0be09e
Reversing an Array in python without using additional memory and in O(N) Linear time Complexity : Data Structure Array : Chapter 1 : In Python | by Sanjit Khasnobis | Medium
April 24, 2022 - N.B. Time complexity is how many times we have traversed through for loop to reverse the number which is near to n/2(n being the no of elements of array) so linear time complexity .. Space complexity is measured as you may have noticed in this example we did not use any temporary data structure to reverse the existing array list, we just used the same one so the program did not use any extra memory for that.
Find elsewhere
🌐
Medium
medium.com › @ashokitschool › how-to-reverse-a-list-in-python-python-list-reverse-method-explained-3ab117a7d235
How to Reverse a List in Python? Python List reverse() Method Explained | by Ashok IT | Jan, 2026 | Medium
January 21, 2026 - Time Complexity: O(n) Space Complexity: reverse() → O(1) Slicing / Loop → O(n) Expecting reverse() to return a value · Confusing reverse() with sorted() Forgetting that slicing creates a new list · Featurereverse()reversed()Modifies original listYesNoReturn typeNoneIteratorMemory efficientYesYes · How do you reverse a list in Python?
🌐
GeeksforGeeks
geeksforgeeks.org › python-reversed-vs-1-which-one-is-faster
Python - reversed() VS [::-1] , Which one is faster? - GeeksforGeeks
June 19, 2024 - The format [a : b : c] in slicing states that from an inclusive to b exclusive, count in increments of c. In the above code, a and b are blank and c is -1. So it iterates the entire list counting from the last element to the first element resulting in a reversed list. ... # Python code to reverse a list using slicing # Original list original_list = [110, 220, 330, 440, 550] print('Original list:', original_list) # Reversing the list using slicing reversed_list = original_list[::-1] # Printing the reversed list elements print('Reversed list elements:') for element in reversed_list: print(element)
🌐
Medium
medium.com › @ryan_forrester_ › python-array-reverse-complete-guide-37f508724621
Python Array Reverse: Complete Guide | by ryan | Medium
October 28, 2024 - It modifies the original list directly: numbers = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] numbers.reverse() print(numbers) # Output: [5, 4, 3, 2, 1] What’s happening here? The `reverse()` method: - Modifies the list in place (no new list is created) - Doesn’t return a new value (returns None) - Uses constant extra space O(1) - Has linear time complexity O(n) ...
🌐
Scaler
scaler.com › home › topics › python list reverse()
Python List reverse() - Scaler Topics
May 7, 2024 - Time Complexity: O · ( l · o · g · 2 · ( n · ) ) O(log2(n))O(log2(n)) Space Complexity: O · ( 1 · ) O(1)O(1) The reversed() function returns an iterator that accesses the given sequence in the reverse order.
🌐
PrepBytes
prepbytes.com › home › python › how to reverse a list in python
How to Reverse a List in Python
April 28, 2023 - ['p', 'r', 'e', 'p', 'b', 'y', 't', 'e', 's'] Using reverse() ['s', 'e', 't', 'y', 'b', 'p', 'e', 'r', 'p'] Time Complexity: O(N) will be the time complexity to reverse a list in Python using the reverse method.
🌐
w3resource
w3resource.com › python › list › list_reverse.php
Python List reverse() Method
June 5, 2024 - The reverse() method has a time complexity of O(n), where n is the number of elements in the list. ... Previous: Python List remove() Method.
🌐
Scaler
scaler.com › home › topics › program for linked list reverse in python
Program for Linked List Reverse in Python - Scaler Topics
March 15, 2023 - The logic to solve linked list reverse in Python using the tail recursive method remains the same, however, a new tail recursive function is added. The function reverseLinkedListTailRecursive reverses the linked list by reversing the links one by one from the beginning until the last node is reached. When the last node is reached, it makes this node the new head of the list. We iterate over the linked list once using recursion, hence the time complexity is
🌐
Stack Overflow
stackoverflow.com › questions › 56884366 › does-looping-through-a-reversedlist-add-to-the-time-complexity-of-my-function › 56884463
python - Does looping through a reversed(list) add to the time complexity of my function? - Stack Overflow
Top answer
1 of 1
11

The reversed builtin like many others in Python 3 return an iterator, and hence does not cost an extra n iterations. When dealing with big-O notation it won't matter, but you are interested in the factor, so no, 

for i in reversed(my_list):

passes the list exactly once. This is exactly the point of these type of helper functions.

Note you could have used

for i in my_list[::-1]:

which is a common way to iterate, but using slicing already returns a list - so similarly to my_list.reverse, an extra n as well.

🌐
Exercism
exercism.org › tracks › python › exercises › reverse-string › approaches › built-in-list-reverse
Explore the 'Use the built-in list.reverse() function.' approach for Reverse String in Python on Exercism
February 15, 2025 - Rather than use a loop + append to then reverse the text, the list.reverse() method is used to perform an in-place reversal. join() is then used to turn the list into a string. This takes O(n) time complexity because list.reverse() & join() ...
🌐
CodeRivers
coderivers.org › blog › python-list-reverse-time-complexity
Python List Reverse Time Complexity: A Comprehensive Guide - CodeRivers
March 20, 2025 - O(n^2) (Quadratic Time): An operation with O(n^2) time complexity takes time proportional to the square of the input size. As the input size grows, the running time increases much more rapidly. This is a slicing operation in Python. Slicing creates a new list with the elements in reverse order.
🌐
PySnacks
pysnacks.com › python-tutorials › how-reverse-python-lists-in-place-slicing-reversed
How to Reverse Python Lists | In-place, slicing & reversed()
May 18, 2020 - The order of elements in the original list is changed. Scenarios where order of elements in the original list can be altered and keeping a low memory footprint is desired . Python lists can be reversed using the [::-1] slicing suffix.
🌐
GitHub
gist.github.com › 98309363925a1b33d5f5
Reverse a list in python · GitHub
April 10, 2015 - Reverse a list in python. GitHub Gist: instantly share code, notes, and snippets.
Related queries
del python time complexity
python reverse
python string reverse time complexity
how to slice a list in reverse order python
python reverse string
python 1 time complexity
python slicing time complexity
python list reverse space complexity