ajv vs yup
Side-by-side comparison of ajv and yup
- Weekly Downloads
- 230.2M
- Stars
- 14.6K
- Gzip Size
- 36.1 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 2h ago
- Open Issues
- 311
- Forks
- 937
- Unpacked Size
- 1.0 MB
- Dependencies
- 4
- Weekly Downloads
- 9.4M
- Stars
- 23.7K
- Gzip Size
- 14.2 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 33m ago
- Open Issues
- 239
- Forks
- 940
- Unpacked Size
- 270.4 kB
- Dependencies
- 4
Download Trends
Verdict
ajv excels in handling JSON Schema validation, making it a robust choice for applications requiring strict schema enforcement. Its high weekly downloads reflect a strong community backing, catering primarily to projects needing comprehensive JSON validation.
On the other hand, yup offers a simpler and more intuitive approach to object schema validation, appealing to developers who prefer ease of use and quick setup. For teams with less experience or smaller projects, yup can provide sufficient functionality without the overhead of a more complex schema validator like ajv.
When considering migration, developers should note ajv's larger package size and steeper learning curve compared to yup, which is lighter and has a more straightforward API. Choosing between the two largely depends on specific project requirements and team familiarity with JSON schema concepts.
Detailed Comparison
| Criteria | ajv | yup |
|---|---|---|
| License | MIT allows for wide usage and modification. | MIT similarly allows flexibility in use. |
| Version | ✓Latest version 8.17.1 indicates ongoing support. | Version 1.7.1 shows it is slightly behind ajv in updates. |
| Use Case | Best suited for large applications requiring rigorous schema validation. | ✓Ideal for smaller applications and simpler object validation needs. |
| Description | Focuses on JSON Schema validation for strict data structures. | Simpler object validation with an easy-to-use syntax. |
| Open Issues | With 311 open issues, it may indicate areas needing improvement. | ✓Fewer issues at 239, suggesting more stability. |
| GitHub Stars | Recognized by 14.6K stars, reflecting community approval. | ✓Higher at 23.7K stars, indicating greater popularity among users. |
| Unpacked Size | 1.0 MB, larger footprint might be cumbersome for small projects. | ✓270.4 kB, relatively smaller but still suitable for simple validations. |
| Learning Curve | Steeper due to complexity in schema definition. | ✓Easier for beginners to grasp and implement quickly. |
| Weekly Downloads | ✓Consistently high at 230.5M, indicating strong adoption. | Substantially lower at 9.4M, suggesting less usage. |
| Bundle Size (gzip) | Larger at 36.1 kB, which might impact load speed. | ✓More compact at 14.2 kB, facilitating faster loading. |
| Community Activity | Active contributions with a notable number of forks (937). | Similar engagement with 940 forks, reflecting vibrant community interest. |