I did a few simple tests:

In [10]: x = pd.Series(range(1000000))

In [13]: timeit 999999 in x.values
567 µs ± 25.6 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)

In [24]: timeit 9 in x.values
666 µs ± 15.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)

In [16]: timeit (x == 999999).any()
6.86 ms ± 107 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)

In [21]: timeit x.eq(999999).any()
7.03 ms ± 33.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)

In [22]: timeit x.eq(9).any()
7.04 ms ± 60 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)

In [15]: timeit x.isin([999999]).any()
9.54 ms ± 291 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100 loops each)

In [17]: timeit 999999 in set(x)
79.8 ms ± 1.98 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)

Interestingly it doesn’t matter if you look up 9 or 999999, it seems like it takes about the same amount of time using the in syntax (must be using some vectorized computation)

In [24]: timeit 9 in x.values
666 µs ± 15.7 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)

In [25]: timeit 9999 in x.values
647 µs ± 5.21 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)

In [26]: timeit 999999 in x.values
642 µs ± 2.11 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)

In [27]: timeit 99199 in x.values
644 µs ± 5.31 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)

In [28]: timeit 1 in x.values
667 µs ± 20.8 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000 loops each)

Seems like using x.values is the fastest, but maybe there is a more elegant way in pandas?