@nivo/core vs recharts
Side-by-side comparison of @nivo/core and recharts
- Weekly Downloads
- 989.1K
- Stars
- 14.0K
- Gzip Size
- 69.6 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 2mo ago
- Open Issues
- 54
- Forks
- 1.1K
- Unpacked Size
- 254.4 kB
- Dependencies
- 30
- Weekly Downloads
- 13.9M
- Stars
- 26.6K
- Gzip Size
- —
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 11h ago
- Open Issues
- 444
- Forks
- 1.9K
- Unpacked Size
- 6.4 MB
- Dependencies
- —
Download Trends
Verdict
@nivo/core is well-suited for data visualization enthusiasts needing a flexible, component-based solution with a focus on both canvas and SVG rendering. It's a strong choice for applications that require isomorphic capabilities and are built using React. In contrast, recharts excels in providing an accessible API for creating responsive and complex charts effortlessly, making it a popular option for teams aiming for quick setup and ease of use.
If your project involves advanced data visualization with unique design needs, @nivo/core may serve you better due to its extensive customization options. However, for projects prioritizing simplicity and wider community support, especially for larger teams with mixed experience levels, recharts could be the more efficient choice. With significantly higher weekly downloads and GitHub stars, it indicates a larger core community which can be advantageous for troubleshooting and support.
Migration from one package to another might involve adjustments in components and API usage, given their different approaches in charting. Note that the larger unpacked size of recharts (6.4 MB) could also impact load times, particularly for projects where performance is critical, while @nivo/core is much more lightweight at 254.4 kB.
Detailed Comparison
| Criteria | @nivo/core | recharts |
|---|---|---|
| License | Both packages are open-source under the MIT license, providing freedom for usage. | Both packages are open-source under the MIT license, providing freedom for usage. |
| Ease of Use | May require a steeper learning curve due to its flexibility and component-based nature. | ✓Designed for simplicity, offering a more intuitive approach for developers. |
| Open Issues | ✓Maintains a reasonable number of open issues at 54, indicating generally healthy maintenance. | Higher open issues at 446 may suggest challenges with maintenance or a more extensive user base. |
| Performance | ✓Favorable performance metrics due to smaller size and efficient rendering. | Potential performance impact from larger size but still effective for standard uses. |
| GitHub Forks | 1.1K forks show reasonable interest for branching and experimentation. | ✓More forks at 1.9K suggest a greater degree of development and customization among users. |
| GitHub Stars | Has a strong star count of 14.0K, reflecting a solid user base and engagement. | ✓Outperforms with 26.6K stars, showcasing higher popularity and community support. |
| Last Updated | Last updated relatively recently on 2025-12-08, indicating ongoing maintenance. | ✓More recently updated on 2026-02-07, showing active development and support. |
| Customization | ✓Offers extensive options for customization with a focus on complex visualizations. | Provides accessible options but less emphasis on deep customization. |
| Unpacked Size | ✓Very lightweight at 254.4 kB, suitable for performance-sensitive applications. | Larger at 6.4 MB, which might pose loading performance concerns. |
| Weekly Downloads | Weekly downloads are considerable but significantly lower at 987.0K. | ✓Consistently higher with 13.9M weekly downloads, indicating broader adoption. |
| Community Support | Solid community support based on downloads and stars, albeit smaller than recharts. | ✓Larger community indicated by higher engagement metrics, facilitating better support. |