@mantine/core vs @mui/material
Side-by-side comparison of @mantine/core and @mui/material
- Weekly Downloads
- 1.3M
- Stars
- 30.5K
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 2d ago
- Open Issues
- 45
- Forks
- 2.2K
- Unpacked Size
- 12.0 MB
- Weekly Downloads
- 7.3M
- Stars
- 97.8K
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 19h ago
- Open Issues
- 1.7K
- Forks
- 32.8K
- Unpacked Size
- 5.7 MB
Download Trends
Verdict
@mantine/core is focused on usability, accessibility, and a strong developer experience, making it a solid choice for developers prioritizing these aspects in their applications. It serves those who may be building custom designs and require flexibility in component usage.
On the other hand, @mui/material is designed around Google's Material Design principles and offers a comprehensive set of components, which makes it ideal for projects that require a consistent look and feel across various platforms. Given its larger weekly download figures, it may be more suited for large-scale applications where out-of-the-box solutions are needed.
Developers should consider team experience when choosing between the two. If familiarity with Material Design exists, @mui/material might be the better option. However, for teams focused on creativity and customization, @mantine/core presents valuable advantages despite its larger bundle size and higher open issues count.
Detailed Comparison
| Criteria | @mantine/core | @mui/material |
|---|---|---|
| License | MIT, allowing for flexibility in usage and distribution. | MIT, maintaining openness and versatility in development. |
| Bundle Size | Larger at 12.0 MB, potentially affecting load times. | ✓Smaller at 5.7 MB, leading to faster load times. |
| Open Issues | ✓45 open issues, suggesting manageable maintenance and community involvement. | 1.7K open issues, which may indicate challenges in maintenance and support. |
| GitHub Forks | 2.2K forks, allowing for experimentation and customization. | ✓32.8K forks, indicating extensive community engagement. |
| GitHub Stars | 30.5K stars, showing a reasonable level of interest. | ✓97.8K stars, reflecting broader recognition in the developer community. |
| Last Updated | Updated recently on 2026-02-06, indicating ongoing support. | Also updated recently on 2026-02-07, showing active development. |
| Learning Curve | ✓Easier for developers focusing on custom design; simpler APIs. | More complex due to comprehensive Material Design components. |
| Weekly Downloads | 1.3M, indicating steady but lower community adoption. | ✓7.3M, suggesting higher popularity and community support. |
| Overall Positioning | Strong focus on usability and accessibility for custom applications. | ✓Comprehensive implementation of Material Design, suitable for consistent UI. |