StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. Application & Data
  3. Microframeworks
  4. Microframeworks
  5. Echo vs TypeORM

Echo vs TypeORM

OverviewComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Echo
Echo
Stacks346
Followers187
Votes59
GitHub Stars31.8K
Forks2.3K
TypeORM
TypeORM
Stacks756
Followers813
Votes81
GitHub Stars36.0K
Forks6.5K

Echo vs TypeORM: What are the differences?

Introduction:
This Markdown code provides a comparison between Echo and TypeORM in the context of web development.

1. **Support for different databases**: Echo primarily focuses on providing a high-performance web framework while TypeORM offers object-relational mapping (ORM) tools to work with databases. Echo supports various databases like MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, and MongoDB, whereas TypeORM specifically supports SQL databases such as MySQL, PostgreSQL, MariaDB, SQLite, and SQL Server among others.

2. **Programming Language Compatibility**: Echo is designed specifically for the Go programming language, offering high performance and minimalistic design for building web applications in Go. On the other hand, TypeORM is an ORM library for TypeScript and JavaScript, enabling developers to work with relational databases using these two languages efficiently.

3. **Flexibility in Data Modeling**: TypeORM provides a more structured approach to data modeling with its entity-based system, allowing developers to define and manipulate database entities through TypeScript/JavaScript classes. In contrast, Echo does not offer a built-in feature for data modeling and management, which may require more manual implementation for handling data structures.

4. **Routing and Middleware Handling**: With Echo, routing and middleware handling are designed to be straightforward and efficient, facilitating the creation of APIs and web services with minimal code. TypeORM, on the other hand, focuses more on database interaction and ORM functionalities, requiring additional tools or libraries for building robust routing and middleware systems.

5. **Community and Ecosystem**: Echo has a strong community around the Go programming language and web development, providing support, resources, and extensions to enhance the framework. While TypeORM also has a considerable community of developers, its ecosystem is more centered around ORM functionalities and database-related tools, offering a different set of resources compared to Echo.

6. **Performance Optimization**: Echo emphasizes performance optimization and speed, aiming to provide a lightweight and fast web framework for building scalable applications. TypeORM, being an ORM library, focuses more on database interactions and query optimization, enabling developers to work efficiently with databases through TypeScript/JavaScript.

In Summary, this Markdown code outlines key differences between Echo and TypeORM in terms of database support, programming language compatibility, data modeling flexibility, routing and middleware handling, community support, and performance optimization for web development.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs
CLI (Node.js)
or
Manual

Detailed Comparison

Echo
Echo
TypeORM
TypeORM

It is a high performance, extensible, minimalist web framework for Go (Golang).

It supports both Active Record and Data Mapper patterns, unlike all other JavaScript ORMs currently in existence, which means you can write high quality, loosely coupled, scalable, maintainable applications the most productive way.

Optimized HTTP router which smartly prioritize routes; Build robust and scalable RESTful APIs; Run with standard HTTP server or FastHTTP server; Group APIs; Extensible middleware framework; Define middleware at root, group or route level; Data binding for JSON, XML and form payload; Handy functions to send variety of HTTP responses; Centralized HTTP error handling; Template rendering with any template engine; Define your format for the logger; Highly customizable
automatically create the database table schemes based on your models; transparently insert / update / delete to the database your objects; map your selections from tables to JavaScript objects and map table columns to object properties; easily create one-to-one, many-to-one, one-to-many and many-to-many relations between tables; and much more.
Statistics
GitHub Stars
31.8K
GitHub Stars
36.0K
GitHub Forks
2.3K
GitHub Forks
6.5K
Stacks
346
Stacks
756
Followers
187
Followers
813
Votes
59
Votes
81
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 11
    Easy to use
  • 10
    Performance
  • 10
    Highly customizable
  • 9
    Open source
  • 9
    Lightweight
Pros
  • 30
    Typescript
  • 12
    Supports MySQL, PostgreSQL, MariaDB, SQLite, MS SQL Ser
  • 9
    Cons of TypeORM
  • 9
    Easy setup
  • 7
    Promise Based
Cons
  • 5
    Completely abandoned by its creator
  • 3
    Too complex for what it does
  • 2
    Doesn't really support native javascript
  • 1
    Cannot use query on any relation
  • 1
    Not proper/real type safety
Integrations
Golang
Golang
No integrations available

What are some alternatives to Echo, TypeORM?

ExpressJS

ExpressJS

Express is a minimal and flexible node.js web application framework, providing a robust set of features for building single and multi-page, and hybrid web applications.

Django REST framework

Django REST framework

It is a powerful and flexible toolkit that makes it easy to build Web APIs.

Sails.js

Sails.js

Sails is designed to mimic the MVC pattern of frameworks like Ruby on Rails, but with support for the requirements of modern apps: data-driven APIs with scalable, service-oriented architecture.

Sinatra

Sinatra

Sinatra is a DSL for quickly creating web applications in Ruby with minimal effort.

Lumen

Lumen

Laravel Lumen is a stunningly fast PHP micro-framework for building web applications with expressive, elegant syntax. We believe development must be an enjoyable, creative experience to be truly fulfilling. Lumen attempts to take the pain out of development by easing common tasks used in the majority of web projects, such as routing, database abstraction, queueing, and caching.

Slim

Slim

Slim is easy to use for both beginners and professionals. Slim favors cleanliness over terseness and common cases over edge cases. Its interface is simple, intuitive, and extensively documented — both online and in the code itself.

Fastify

Fastify

Fastify is a web framework highly focused on speed and low overhead. It is inspired from Hapi and Express and as far as we know, it is one of the fastest web frameworks in town. Use Fastify can increase your throughput up to 100%.

Falcon

Falcon

Falcon is a minimalist WSGI library for building speedy web APIs and app backends. We like to think of Falcon as the Dieter Rams of web frameworks.

hapi

hapi

hapi is a simple to use configuration-centric framework with built-in support for input validation, caching, authentication, and other essential facilities for building web applications and services.

FeathersJS

FeathersJS

Feathers is a real-time, micro-service web framework for NodeJS that gives you control over your data via RESTful resources, sockets and flexible plug-ins.

Related Comparisons

Bootstrap
Materialize

Bootstrap vs Materialize

Laravel
Django

Django vs Laravel vs Node.js

Bootstrap
Foundation

Bootstrap vs Foundation vs Material UI

Node.js
Spring Boot

Node.js vs Spring-Boot

Liquibase
Flyway

Flyway vs Liquibase