@emotion/react vs bulma
Side-by-side comparison of @emotion/react and bulma
- Weekly Downloads
- 14.2M
- Stars
- 18.0K
- Gzip Size
- 12.1 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 3mo ago
- Open Issues
- 367
- Forks
- 1.1K
- Unpacked Size
- 816.8 kB
- Dependencies
- 15
- Weekly Downloads
- 231.7K
- Stars
- 50.1K
- Gzip Size
- 173 B
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 12d ago
- Open Issues
- 517
- Forks
- 3.9K
- Unpacked Size
- 7.0 MB
- Dependencies
- 1
Download Trends
Verdict
@emotion/react provides a powerful way to style React components using a CSS-in-JS approach, making it particularly suitable for projects where component encapsulation and dynamic styling are essential. In contrast, bulma is a straightforward CSS framework that leverages Flexbox for layout, ideal for developers looking for a responsive design without investing in JavaScript libraries.
For projects with a focus on React and a need for complex styles, @emotion/react is the better choice, especially if the team is experienced with JavaScript and React concepts. However, for static or simpler projects that require quick implementation and consistent design, bulma may be more suitable, particularly for teams with less JavaScript experience.
Consider that migrating from bulma to a CSS-in-JS solution like @emotion/react could require substantial refactoring, particularly if your existing codebase uses traditional CSS methodologies. On the other hand, @emotion/react's size advantages in bundle size are notable, but the complexity may not be necessary for all use cases, which elevates the importance of team capability in the decision-making process.
Detailed Comparison
| Criteria | @emotion/react | bulma |
|---|---|---|
| License | Utilizes MIT license, promoting wide usage. | Also licensed under MIT, ensuring developer freedom. |
| Version | ✓11.14.0, indicating a relatively mature library. | 1.0.4, suggesting an earlier stage of development. |
| Description | Simple styling approach tailored for React applications. | Modern CSS framework that embraces Flexbox for layout. |
| Open Issues | ✓367 open issues, indicating room for improvement and development activity. | 517 open issues, suggesting ongoing challenges and updates. |
| GitHub Stars | 18.0K stars, indicating strong community support. | ✓50.1K stars, signifying high popularity within the CSS framework space. |
| Last Updated | Last updated on 2025-11-04, showing recent activity. | ✓Last updated on 2026-01-26, indicating continued support. |
| Unpacked Size | ✓816.8 kB, indicating a sizeable library for features offered. | 7.0 MB, relatively larger, which could impact load times. |
| Weekly Downloads | ✓14.2M downloads, showcasing significant usage among React developers. | 231.1K downloads, reflecting a smaller but dedicated user base. |
| Community Support | ✓Strong community presence with active development. | Larger community but potentially slower responsiveness due to issue load. |
| Bundle Size (gzip) | A compact 12.1 kB, which is efficient for modern web. | ✓An extremely lightweight 173 B, making it easy to incorporate. |
| Use Case Suitability | ✓Great for dynamic, component-based designs in React. | Best for traditional static websites requiring responsive layouts. |