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. Frameworks
  4. Front End Frameworks
  5. Quasar Framework vs Web Components

Quasar Framework vs Web Components

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Web Components
Web Components
Stacks82
Followers60
Votes0
Quasar Framework
Quasar Framework
Stacks451
Followers771
Votes404
GitHub Stars26.9K
Forks3.7K

Quasar Framework vs Web Components: What are the differences?

Introduction

Here, we will discuss the key differences between the Quasar Framework and Web Components.

  1. Integration with Existing Frameworks: The Quasar Framework is a comprehensive solution that provides an all-in-one development experience powered by Vue.js. It offers a wide range of components and tools, allowing developers to quickly build applications. In contrast, Web Components are a technology standard that allows for the creation of reusable components. They can be used with any JavaScript framework or library, enabling developers to leverage existing tools and ecosystems.

  2. Scope of Functionality: Quasar Framework offers a wide range of pre-built components and utilities, such as grids, forms, modals, and more. It also includes features like routing, state management, and internationalization. Web Components, on the other hand, provide a lower-level set of APIs for creating custom components. They focus on encapsulation and reusability, allowing developers to create completely self-contained and isolated components with their own styling and behavior.

  3. Development Experience: Quasar Framework provides a developer-friendly experience with a CLI (Command Line Interface) tool that allows for rapid application scaffolding, debugging, and testing. It also offers extensive documentation and a vibrant community for support. Web Components, on the other hand, require more manual setup and configuration. Although they can be used with various build tools, libraries, and frameworks, additional work is often required to set up a development environment.

  4. Component Interoperability: In Quasar Framework, components are built with a specific framework (Vue.js) in mind and are tightly integrated with its ecosystem. This allows for seamless interoperability between components and ensures consistent behavior across the application. Web Components, on the other hand, are framework-agnostic and can be used with any JavaScript framework or library. They provide a way to share components across different projects or teams, making them more flexible in terms of interoperability.

  5. Browser Support: Quasar Framework leverages the capabilities of modern browsers and provides polyfills for older browsers, ensuring wide-ranging browser support. Web Components, being a web standard, are supported by all major browsers. However, not all browsers fully support all features of Web Components, especially the Shadow DOM, which may require additional polyfills or workarounds for consistent behavior.

  6. Community and Ecosystem: Quasar Framework has an active and growing community, with extensive documentation, tutorials, and plugins available. It also offers premium support options for enterprise applications. Web Components have a larger ecosystem, as they are a web standard and can be used with any JavaScript framework or library. They have a wider range of tools, libraries, and resources available, and benefit from the collective efforts of the web development community.

In summary, the Quasar Framework provides a comprehensive development experience with pre-built components and tools tightly integrated with Vue.js, while Web Components offer a lower-level set of APIs for creating reusable components that can be used with any JavaScript framework or library. The Quasar Framework focuses on rapid application development and integration, while Web Components prioritize encapsulation and interoperability.

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

Advice on Web Components, Quasar Framework

Gericke
Gericke

Jul 27, 2020

Needs adviceon.NET Core.NET CoreJavaScriptJavaScriptReactReact

Hi,

I am looking into solutions for reusable components for an existing #MVC project which is build on .NET Core. Currently some functionality is being reuses via JavaScript. I have React experience so I know I can create React components and then reference it on the MVC app. The only problem is I do not know the full extent of it as the current app uses a lot of 3rd party libraries, not sure how that will effect React components. I am currently looking into WebComponents which is also another way for creating reusable components and it is compatible with any JavaScript library based on what I have seen on the website. Also to take in consideration that it should cause a re-write of the system.

So my question is, to future-proof reusable components, which will be best React or Web Components? And which will be more reliable to use with 3rd party libraries?

49.1k views49.1k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

Web Components
Web Components
Quasar Framework
Quasar Framework

Web components are a set of web platform APIs that allow you to create new custom, reusable, encapsulated HTML tags to use in web pages and web apps.

Build responsive Single Page Apps, SSR Apps, PWAs, Hybrid Mobile Apps and Electron Apps, all using the same codebase!, powered with Vue.

-
SPAs (Single Page App); SSR (Server-side Rendered App); PWAs (Progressive Web App); Mobile apps (Android, iOS, …); Electron; Vue.js; Full RTL support; Persian calendar; Material design 2; Complete documentation; Unit test ready
Statistics
GitHub Stars
-
GitHub Stars
26.9K
GitHub Forks
-
GitHub Forks
3.7K
Stacks
82
Stacks
451
Followers
60
Followers
771
Votes
0
Votes
404
Pros & Cons
No community feedback yet
Pros
  • 59
    Excellent documentation
  • 44
    Deploy one codebase to web, desktop, mobile, and more
  • 40
    Lots of UI components
  • 39
    Extensive collection of components
  • 33
    Being able to bundle for almost all platform is awesome
Cons
  • 4
    Stackoverflow 1.5k Questions
Integrations
No integrations available
Linux
Linux
Electron
Electron
macOS
macOS
Windows
Windows
Vue.js
Vue.js
Material Design
Material Design

What are some alternatives to Web Components, Quasar Framework?

Bootstrap

Bootstrap

Bootstrap is the most popular HTML, CSS, and JS framework for developing responsive, mobile first projects on the web.

Foundation

Foundation

Foundation is the most advanced responsive front-end framework in the world. You can quickly prototype and build sites or apps that work on any kind of device with Foundation, which includes layout constructs (like a fully responsive grid), elements and best practices.

Semantic UI

Semantic UI

Semantic empowers designers and developers by creating a shared vocabulary for UI.

Materialize

Materialize

A CSS Framework based on material design.

Material Design for Angular

Material Design for Angular

Material Design is a specification for a unified system of visual, motion, and interaction design that adapts across different devices. Our goal is to deliver a lean, lightweight set of AngularJS-native UI elements that implement the material design system for use in Angular SPAs.

Material-UI

Material-UI

Material UI is a library of React UI components that implements Google's Material Design.

Blazor

Blazor

Blazor is a .NET web framework that runs in any browser. You author Blazor apps using C#/Razor and HTML.

Nuxt.js

Nuxt.js

Nuxt.js presets all the configuration needed to make your development of a Vue.js application enjoyable. You can use Nuxt.js for SSR, SPA, Static Generated, PWA and more.

UIkIt

UIkIt

UIkit gives you a comprehensive collection of HTML, CSS, and JS components which is simple to use, easy to customize and extendable.

Tailwind CSS

Tailwind CSS

Tailwind is different from frameworks like Bootstrap, Foundation, or Bulma in that it's not a UI kit. It doesn't have a default theme, and there are no build-in UI components. It comes with a menu of predesigned widgets to build your site with, but doesn't impose design decisions that are difficult to undo.

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