@tiptap/core vs lexical
Side-by-side comparison of @tiptap/core and lexical
- Weekly Downloads
- 5.3M
- Stars
- 35.0K
- Gzip Size
- 91.0 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 2d ago
- Open Issues
- 866
- Forks
- 2.9K
- Unpacked Size
- 2.3 MB
- Dependencies
- 11
- Weekly Downloads
- 1.9M
- Stars
- 22.9K
- Gzip Size
- 46.9 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 3h ago
- Open Issues
- 589
- Forks
- 2.1K
- Unpacked Size
- 1.6 MB
- Dependencies
- 1
Download Trends
Verdict
@tiptap/core excels as a headless rich text editor, making it suitable for applications that require flexibility in integrating rich text features. It caters well to teams looking for a customizable solution with a strong community backing, evident from its high number of GitHub stars and forks. In contrast, lexical focuses on providing an extensible text editor framework, emphasizing reliability, accessibility, and performance, appealing mostly to developers who prioritize these features in their projects.
For larger projects or those with teams experienced in customization, @tiptap/core is a more fitting choice due to its extensive topic coverage and rich integration capabilities. On the other hand, lexical is well-suited for smaller teams or projects prioritizing speed and efficiency, as reflected in its smaller package size and lower weekly downloads. Teams should consider their specific needs and the development speed they require when choosing between the two.
In terms of migration and potential trade-offs, teams moving to @tiptap/core may face a learning curve due to its extensive customization options. Conversely, developers looking into lexical might find it easier to adapt quickly to its straightforward extensibility and strong performance, though they may sacrifice some customization flexibility in doing so.
Detailed Comparison
| Criteria | @tiptap/core | lexical |
|---|---|---|
| License | MIT license allows for wide usage and modification. | MIT license also permits similar flexibility. |
| Version | ✓Up-to-date with version 3.19.0, indicating active development. | Version 0.40.0 shows ongoing improvements but is relatively younger. |
| Categories | Specializes in rich-text editing with various integrations available. | Categorized similarly, but emphasizes extensibility and performance. |
| Description | Headless rich text editor tailored for customization. | Extensible text editor framework focused on reliability and performance. |
| Open Issues | With 865 open issues, some development challenges may exist. | ✓Fewer open issues at 589 reflects a potentially more stable codebase. |
| GitHub Stars | ✓High visibility with 35.0K stars, reflecting community support. | Moderately lower at 22.9K stars, still substantial but less popular. |
| Unpacked Size | Larger at 2.3 MB, offering more features potentially at the cost of size. | ✓More compact at 1.6 MB, which may appeal to lightweight applications. |
| Learning Curve | Potentially steeper due to customization capabilities. | ✓Faster to learn for basic implementations, but less flexible. |
| Weekly Downloads | ✓Strong adoption with 5.2M weekly downloads, indicating popularity and community interest. | Lower adoption at 1.9M weekly downloads, suggesting a smaller user base. |
| Community Support | ✓Strong community support with high stars and forks. | Growing community but less established compared to @tiptap/core. |
| Bundle Size (gzip) | Larger bundle size at 91.0 kB, which could affect load times. | ✓Leaner at 46.9 kB, likely providing faster initial load times. |
| Customization Options | ✓Offers extensive customization for specific project needs. | Provides extensibility, but with limitations on customization depth. |