@builder.io/qwik vs solid-js
Side-by-side comparison of @builder.io/qwik and solid-js
- Weekly Downloads
- 23.5K
- Stars
- 21.9K
- Gzip Size
- 32.8 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 35m ago
- Open Issues
- 110
- Forks
- 1.4K
- Unpacked Size
- 23.4 MB
- Dependencies
- 1
- Weekly Downloads
- 1.5M
- Stars
- 35.1K
- Gzip Size
- 4.0 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 13d ago
- Open Issues
- 130
- Forks
- 1.0K
- Unpacked Size
- 1.1 MB
- Dependencies
- 1
Download Trends
Verdict
@builder.io/qwik is an open-source sub-framework that excels in server-side rendering and offers capabilities for lazy loading and animations. It is designed for users who prioritize performance and are building complex applications that benefit from these features.
In contrast, solid-js serves as a declarative JavaScript library focused on building user interfaces with a strong emphasis on fine-grained reactivity. It is ideal for developers looking for a lightweight solution for dynamic UIs, especially in applications where runtime performance is a priority.
When considering project size and team experience, if your team is looking for a robust framework to handle extensive server-side rendering needs, @builder.io/qwik may be the better choice. However, for smaller projects or teams with a focus on rapid UI development and fine-grained performance management, solid-js would be more suitable given its smaller bundle size and higher weekly downloads.
Detailed Comparison
| Criteria | @builder.io/qwik | solid-js |
|---|---|---|
| License | MIT, promotes open-source collaboration. | MIT, same benefits for developers. |
| Version | ✓1.19.0, more frequent updates suggest active development. | 1.9.11, slightly less frequent updates but stable. |
| Description | Focused on server-side rendering and performance enhancements. | A declarative library for efficient user interface development. |
| Open Issues | 111 open issues, needs attention for improvements. | 129 open issues, also requires maintenance. |
| GitHub Forks | ✓1.4K forks suggest healthy engagement and experimentation. | 1.0K forks, less engagement in comparison. |
| GitHub Stars | 21.9K stars show good community interest. | ✓35.1K stars indicate stronger community support. |
| Unpacked Size | 23.4 MB, suitable for more complex applications. | ✓1.1 MB, optimal for lightweight projects. |
| Team Experience | May require a steeper learning curve due to framework complexity. | ✓Easier for teams familiar with JSX and reactive programming. |
| Primary Use Case | Best for applications requiring server-side rendering and advanced features. | More suitable for interactive user interfaces with high performance needs. |
| Weekly Downloads | 23.8K downloads indicate a smaller user base. | ✓1.5M downloads reflect widespread adoption. |
| Bundle Size (gzip) | 32.8 kB, larger footprint for features. | ✓4.0 kB, minimal and efficient for performance. |