Head-to-Head: Geist UI vs Material-UI Analysis

@geist-ui/react

v2.2.5(over 2 years ago)

This package was last published over a year ago. It may not be actively maintained.Types definitions are bundled with the npm packageNumber of direct dependencies: 1Monthly npm downloads

@geist-ui/react is a modern and customizable React component library designed for building elegant and responsive user interfaces. It offers a wide range of UI components such as buttons, modals, layouts, and forms, all following a minimalist design approach. The library provides a seamless integration with React applications, allowing developers to quickly create visually appealing interfaces with ease.

Alternatives:
@chakra-ui/react+
@mui/material+
antd+
rebass+
grommet+
semantic-ui-react+
blueprintjs/core+
evergreen-ui+
rsuite+
react-bootstrap+

Tags: reactcomponent-libraryuser-interfaceresponsive-designcustomizable

@material-ui/core

v4.12.4(about 2 years ago)

This package is deprecated: Material UI v4 doesn't receive active development since September 2021. See the guide https://mui.com/material-ui/migration/migration-v4/ to upgrade to v5.Types definitions are bundled with the npm packageNumber of direct dependencies: 12Monthly npm downloads

@material-ui/core is a popular React component library that provides a set of customizable and accessible UI components for building modern web applications. It follows Google's Material Design guidelines, offering a wide range of components like buttons, cards, dialogs, and more, all styled with a consistent design language.

Alternatives:
@mui/material+
antd+
chakra-ui+
blueprintjs/core+
react-bootstrap+
semantic-ui-react+
rebass+
grommet+
evergreen-ui+
primevue+

Tags: reactui-componentsmaterial-designaccessiblecustomizable

Fight!

Popularity

@Material-UI/core is one of the most popular and widely used UI libraries for React. It has a large and active community, extensive documentation, and is well-established. On the other hand, @geist-ui/react is a relatively newer library and gaining popularity, but it may not have the same level of community support and resources as @Material-UI/core.

Component Ecosystem

@Material-UI/core provides a comprehensive set of UI components with a variety of customization options. It has a rich ecosystem of components, layouts, and themes. @geist-ui/react also offers a decent range of components with a modern and minimalist design approach. However, it may have a more limited selection compared to @Material-UI/core.

Styling and Theming

Both libraries offer styling and theming capabilities. @Material-UI/core uses JSS (CSS in JS) for styling, which provides a flexible and powerful way to customize styles. It also provides a theming system with predefined themes. @geist-ui/react, on the other hand, uses its own styling solution called 'Styled-JSX', which is an approach similar to CSS modules. It also provides theme support, but the theming system may not be as extensive as @Material-UI/core.

Developer Experience

@Material-UI/core has a mature and well-documented API, making it easy to use and learn. It provides consistent and predictable behavior across components. Error handling and debugging are also well-supported. @geist-ui/react also maintains good documentation and a simple API, but being a newer library, it may have less extensive documentation and examples compared to @Material-UI/core.

Customization and Extensibility

@Material-UI/core is known for its high degree of customization. It allows overriding styles at a granular level and provides hooks and APIs for customization. It also has a robust system for creating custom themes and components. @geist-ui/react offers some level of customization but may not be as flexible as @Material-UI/core when it comes to overriding styles and creating custom components.

Performance

Both libraries aim for good performance, but there might be some differences. @Material-UI/core is a mature library and has optimizations in place to ensure better performance. @geist-ui/react is relatively newer and may not have the same level of performance optimizations. However, the performance difference between the two may not be significant for most use cases.