ofetch vs undici
Side-by-side comparison of ofetch and undici
- Weekly Downloads
- 3.9M
- Stars
- 5.1K
- Gzip Size
- 37.3 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 1d ago
- Open Issues
- 62
- Forks
- 151
- Unpacked Size
- 63.9 kB
- Dependencies
- 4
- Weekly Downloads
- 44.8M
- Stars
- 7.4K
- Gzip Size
- 165.6 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 11h ago
- Open Issues
- 326
- Forks
- 701
- Unpacked Size
- 1.5 MB
- Dependencies
- 1
Download Trends
Verdict
ofetch is designed as a more versatile fetch API, suitable for use in Node.js, browsers, and web workers. It's particularly well-suited for projects requiring lightweight HTTP requests without complex configuration.
undici, on the other hand, is tailored specifically for Node.js, acting as a robust HTTP/1.1 client. It is a better option for systems needing efficient performance in a server-side environment, especially when handling lots of concurrent connections.
While ofetch offers a smaller bundle size, undici may be favored in larger-scale applications due to its greater number of weekly downloads and GitHub stars, suggesting a wider adoption and community support, which can be crucial for long-term maintenance and upgrades.
Detailed Comparison
| Criteria | ofetch | undici |
|---|---|---|
| License | MIT license ensures flexibility and reuse. | MIT license, offering similar benefits. |
| Version | Slightly older version, but updated recently. | ✓Newer version with recent updates. |
| Description | Versatile fetch API supporting Node.js, browsers, and workers. | HTTP/1.1 client optimized for Node.js. |
| Open Issues | ✓62 open issues indicate manageable support requirements. | 328 open issues suggest potential for more active maintenance needs. |
| Project Fit | Ideal for smaller projects or those requiring flexible environments. | ✓Better suited for large-scale server-side applications needing efficiency. |
| GitHub Stars | 5.1K stars reflecting good community interest. | ✓7.4K stars showcasing significant community backing. |
| Unpacked Size | ✓Compact at 63.9 kB, providing a lightweight solution. | Larger at 1.5 MB, potentially impacting load times. |
| Weekly Downloads | Lower usage with 3.9M downloads. | ✓Higher usage at 43.8M downloads, indicating broader adoption. |
| Bundle Size (gzip) | ✓Minimal at 37.3 kB gzip, ideal for performance-sensitive applications. | Larger at 165.6 kB, which may be a consideration for front-end bundling. |
| Community Engagement | Active with reasonable interaction, as seen from forks and issues. | ✓More actively developed with a significantly higher number of forks. |
| Suitability for Node.js | Usable in Node.js but not exclusively designed for it. | ✓Optimized for Node.js, providing native performance benefits. |