Speed of Range.Find vs Range.FindNext

Hello all,

I have been noticing the use of .FindNext more and more in recent code examples. I know that .FindNext looks a bit cleaner, but when I was learning VBA, I found that the .FindNext method was quite a bit slower (about 40% slower) than just using .Find over and over. I realize that seems a little counterintuitive, so I made a test workbook to verify if that was true or not.

Attached is a zip file containing the test workbook (had to zip it to get it under the 1 MB limit, test file is 4.46 MB).
The test file has 1 sheet with with just the word "text" in cells A1:E50000 (so 250,000 cells with just the word "text").
The file has 2 macros to test the speed of the different methods. The macros are identical except for one uses only the .Find method while the other uses the .FindNext method.

Find Only:

Please Login or Register  to view this content.

FindNext:

Please Login or Register  to view this content.

I ran each macro 3 times. Here were the results (in seconds)

Find Only (Average 9.792969):
10.015625
9.671875
9.69140625

FindNext (Average 13.88151):
13.89453125
13.875
13.875

As a result, I have always solely used .Find instead of .FindNext. Is there any reason or advantage to use .FindNext other than the code "looks better"?

[EDIT]
Adding system specs for reference regarding code run speed (this is the system that ran the test):
Windows XP Pro 2002 SP3
Intel Core2 Duo 2.99 GHz
3.49 GB of RAM
Excel 2007 SP3

on 2011 with a smaller dataset there is very little difference (259 v 260 seconds). of course you can't use findnext in a udf, so that's an advantage for multiple finds.

Thank you for the reply, JP. I was unaware that .FindNext didn't work in UDF's (becuase I've only ever used .Find), so that is good to know

also you can't use findnext if you have another find inside the outer find, or if you want to search formatting.