redux vs valtio
Side-by-side comparison of redux and valtio
- Weekly Downloads
- 21.6M
- Stars
- 61.5K
- Gzip Size
- 1.4 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 4d ago
- Open Issues
- 44
- Forks
- 15.2K
- Unpacked Size
- 289.8 kB
- Dependencies
- 1
- Weekly Downloads
- 1.1M
- Stars
- 10.1K
- Gzip Size
- 5.8 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 13d ago
- Open Issues
- 2
- Forks
- 283
- Unpacked Size
- 101.1 kB
- Dependencies
- 3
Download Trends
Verdict
Redux is well-suited for larger applications and teams that require a predictable state management solution, with a strong focus on immutability and a large ecosystem of middleware and tools. Its high weekly downloads and extensive GitHub community reflect its stability and reliability, making it a go-to choice for many established projects.
Valtio, on the other hand, offers a simpler and more flexible approach to state management with its proxy-based model, making it ideal for smaller projects or teams looking for a lightweight solution. If your focus is quick development with less boilerplate code, Valtio’s ease of use could be more beneficial, especially for those familiar with React.
While transitioning from Redux to Valtio may require a mindset change regarding state management, it can lead to improved performance with simpler patterns. However, for projects already leveraging Redux heavily, it may be more practical to stick with Redux due to its extensive ecosystem and community support.
Detailed Comparison
| Criteria | redux | valtio |
|---|---|---|
| Bundle Size | ✓Minimal at 1.4 kB gzip, promotes performance in production. | Relatively larger at 5.8 kB gzip, impacting load times. |
| Flexibility | Rigid structure might limit flexibility in some dynamic use cases. | ✓Offers more flexibility with proxy-state management. |
| Open Issues | A manageable number of open issues demonstrates active maintenance. | ✓Very few open issues, reflecting good stability. |
| GitHub Forks | ✓High fork count suggests active contribution and modification. | Much lower fork count, indicating less community engagement. |
| GitHub Stars | ✓Impressive star count indicates strong community support. | Solid star count, but lower compared to Redux. |
| Unpacked Size | Larger package size may imply more features and complexity. | ✓Smaller size, suitable for lightweight applications. |
| Learning Curve | Steeper learning curve due to its architecture and principles. | ✓Easier to grasp, particularly for new developers or simpler projects. |
| Team Experience | Well-suited for teams familiar with functional programming concepts. | ✓Easier for teams looking to adopt a simple state management tool. |
| Weekly Downloads | ✓Significant downloads, indicating wide usage in the industry. | Decent downloads, but not on the same scale as Redux. |
| Overall Popularity | ✓Highly popular with extensive community and resources. | Moderately popular with a growing but smaller community. |
| Use Case Suitability | Best suited for larger applications needing structured state management. | ✓Ideal for smaller projects or those requiring quick iterations. |