Comparison of JavaScript-based web frameworks
This is a comparison of web frameworks for front-end web development that are reliant on JavaScript code for their behavior.
General information
| Framework | Version compared | Size in KB | Download link | License | Source language |
| Angular | 10300 | TypeScript | |||
| AngularJS | JavaScript | ||||
| Apache Royale | 19 | ActionScript 3, MXML, CSS | |||
| Backbone.js | 190 | JavaScript | |||
| Dojo | 729 | JavaScript | |||
| Ember.js | 14200 | JavaScript | |||
| Enyo | 25 | JavaScript | |||
| Ext JS | GPL & Commercial | JavaScript | |||
| Google Web Toolkit | 109000 | Java | |||
| Htmx | 16 | Javascript | |||
| jQuery | 34 | JavaScript | |||
| jQWidgets | 198000 | CC & Commercial | JavaScript | ||
| Knockout | 70 | JavaScript | |||
| MooTools | 58 | JavaScript | |||
| Prototype & script. aculo.us | Prototype: script.aculo.us: | JavaScript | |||
| qooxdoo | 24800 | JavaScript | |||
| React | 172 | JavaScript / TypeScript | |||
| SAP OpenUI5 | JavaScript | ||||
| SproutCore | 236 | JavaScript | |||
| Svelte | 2640 | JavaScript / TypeScript | |||
| Next.js | 139000 | JavaScript / TypeScript | |||
| 10600 | JavaScript / TypeScript | ||||
| 2400 | JavaScript / TypeScript | ||||
| React Router | 27.1 | JavaScript / TypeScript | |||
| Remix | 278 | JavaScript / TypeScript | |||
| 54500 | JavaScript / TypeScript | ||||
| 10 | JavaScript / TypeScript | ||||
| 1260 | JavaScript / TypeScript | ||||
| Webix | 7480 | GPL & Commercial | JavaScript | ||
| ZK | LGPL & GPL & ZOL | XML + Java |
High-level framework comparison
JavaScript-based web application frameworks, such as React and Vue, provide extensive capabilities but come with associated trade-offs. These frameworks often extend or enhance features available through native web technologies, such as routing, component-based development, and state management. While native web standards, including Web Components, modern JavaScript APIs like Fetch and ES Modules, and browser capabilities like Shadow DOM, have advanced significantly, frameworks remain widely used for their ability to enhance developer productivity, offer structured patterns for large-scale applications, simplify handling edge cases, and provide tools for performance optimization.Frameworks can introduce abstraction layers that may contribute to performance overhead, larger bundle sizes, and increased complexity. Modern frameworks, such as React 18 and Vue 3, address these challenges with features like concurrent rendering, tree-shaking, and selective hydration. While these advancements improve rendering efficiency and resource management, their benefits depend on the specific application and implementation context. Lightweight frameworks, such as Svelte and Preact, take different architectural approaches, with Svelte eliminating the virtual DOM entirely in favor of compiling components to efficient JavaScript code, and Preact offering a minimal, compatible alternative to React. Framework choice depends on an application’s requirements, including the team’s expertise, performance goals, and development priorities.
A newer category of web frameworks, including enhance.dev, Astro, and Fresh, leverages native web standards while minimizing abstractions and development tooling. These solutions emphasize progressive enhancement, server-side rendering, and optimizing performance. Astro renders static HTML by default while hydrating only interactive parts. Fresh focuses on server-side rendering with zero runtime overhead. Enhance.dev prioritizes progressive enhancement patterns using Web Components. While these tools reduce reliance on client-side JavaScript by shifting logic to build-time or server-side execution, they still use JavaScript where necessary for interactivity. This approach makes them particularly suitable for performance-critical and content-focused applications.