ky vs node-fetch
Side-by-side comparison of ky and node-fetch
- Weekly Downloads
- 5.1M
- Stars
- 16.3K
- Gzip Size
- 5.1 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 14d ago
- Open Issues
- 31
- Forks
- 449
- Unpacked Size
- 280.7 kB
- Dependencies
- 1
- Weekly Downloads
- 101.7M
- Stars
- 8.9K
- Gzip Size
- 26.6 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 1y ago
- Open Issues
- 223
- Forks
- 1.0K
- Unpacked Size
- 107.3 kB
- Dependencies
- 6
Download Trends
Verdict
ky is an elegant choice for developers seeking a minimalistic HTTP client, particularly those leveraging modern frontend frameworks. It is well-suited for projects requiring a lightweight solution with an emphasis on simplicity and elegance in API interaction.
In contrast, node-fetch serves as a robust option for server-side applications needing Fetch API compatibility in Node.js. With significantly higher weekly downloads and a larger community, node-fetch may be preferred for larger teams or applications that require broader support, more features, or ease of integration within Node.js ecosystems.
However, developers migrating from one to the other should consider differences in API implementations and additional dependencies. Transitioning may require adjustments to codebases, particularly due to node-fetch's larger size and potential overhead compared to the minimalistic approach of ky.
Detailed Comparison
| Criteria | ky | node-fetch |
|---|---|---|
| License | MIT, allowing flexible usage | MIT, allowing flexible usage |
| Version | 1.14.3, offering modern features | ✓3.3.2, slightly older but stable |
| Use Case | Ideal for front-end applications focusing on simplicity | Best for server-side applications requiring HTTP requests |
| Description | Tiny and elegant HTTP client based on the Fetch API | A light-weight module that brings Fetch API to node.js |
| Open Issues | ✓31, relatively few indicating good maintenance | 223, suggesting more challenges or higher user queries |
| GitHub Forks | 449, indicating moderate community contributions | ✓1.0K, suggesting more active development and experimentation |
| GitHub Stars | ✓16.3K, reflecting strong community interest | 8.9K, showing decent community backing |
| Unpacked Size | 280.7 kB, larger footprint | ✓107.3 kB, more compact and efficient |
| Weekly Downloads | 5.1M, generally popular but less than its alternative | ✓101.4M, indicating broader adoption and support |
| Community Support | Strong community yet smaller than node-fetch | ✓Larger community with more examples and resources |
| Bundle Size (gzip) | ✓5.1 kB, minimal size for quick load | 26.6 kB, relatively larger and may affect performance |
| Technical Complexity | ✓Simple API and straightforward to use | More features that may introduce complexity |