Bulma vs Materialize

Overview

Materialize

Stacks698

Followers1.2K

Votes557

GitHub Stars39.1K

Forks4.7K

Bulma

Stacks780

Followers855

Votes38

GitHub Stars50.0K

Forks3.9K

Bulma vs Materialize: What are the differences?

Bulma and Materialize are both popular CSS frameworks that aim to simplify web development and provide pre-built styling components. However, there are several key differences between the two.

Customization: Bulma offers a highly customizable approach, allowing developers to easily modify and customize the framework's components. On the other hand, Materialize provides a more opinionated design philosophy, with fewer customization options and a focus on consistent visual aesthetics.
Size: Materialize has a larger overall file size compared to Bulma. This can impact website loading times, especially on slower internet connections. Bulma, on the other hand, focuses on providing a lightweight and minimalistic framework, resulting in faster load times.
Component Design: Bulma employs a mobile-first design approach, ensuring that its components are optimized for mobile devices. Materialize, on the other hand, takes a more desktop-first approach and provides components that are designed to work well on larger screens.
Flexbox: Bulma extensively uses the CSS Flexbox layout system, making it easier to create flexible and responsive designs. Materialize, on the other hand, relies on a combination of CSS classes and grid systems for its layout, providing slightly less flexibility in design.
JavaScript Integration: Materialize provides extensive JavaScript support and comes bundled with pre-built JavaScript components like dropdowns, modals, and carousels. Bulma, on the other hand, is a purely CSS framework and does not provide any built-in JavaScript functionality. However, developers can easily integrate third-party JavaScript libraries with Bulma.
Community and Documentation: Materialize has a larger and more active community, with a wealth of resources, tutorials, and third-party plugins available. It also has comprehensive documentation, making it easier for developers to get started. Bulma, while rapidly growing, has a smaller community and documentation, but still provides sufficient resources for developers to work with.

In summary, Bulma and Materialize differ in their customization options, file size, component design approach, layout systems, JavaScript integration, and community documentation support.

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)

Manual

Advice on Materialize, Bulma

Daniel

Frontend Developer at atSistemas

Jun 10, 2020

Needs adviceon

New Relic

Next.js

React

I'm building, from scratch, a webapp. It's going to be a dashboard to check on our apps in New Relic and update the Apdex from the webapp. I have just chosen Next.js as our framework because we use React already, and after going through the tutorial, I just loved the latest changes they have implemented.

But we have to decide on a CSS framework for the UI. I'm partial to Bulma because I love that it's all about CSS (and you can use SCSS from the start), that it's rather lightweight and that it doesn't come with JavaScript clutter. One of the things I hate about Bootstrap is that you depend on jQuery to use the JavaScript part. My boss loves UIkIt, but when I've used it in the past, I didn't like it.

What do you think we should use? Maybe you have another suggestion?

1.07M views1.07M

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Materialize	Bulma
A CSS Framework based on material design.	Bulma is a CSS framework based on Flexbox and built with Sass
Speeds up development;User Experience Focused;Easy to work with	-
Statistics
GitHub Stars 39.1K	GitHub Stars 50.0K
GitHub Forks 4.7K	GitHub Forks 3.9K
Stacks 698	Stacks 780
Followers 1.2K	Followers 855
Votes 557	Votes 38
Pros & Cons
Pros 102 Google material design 74 Easy to use 74 Responsive 54 Modern looks 48 Open source Cons 7 Mobile errors 6 Poor Grid System 2 Unmaintained	Pros 12 Easy setup 6 Community-created themes 6 Easy-to-customize the sass build 5 Great docs 5 Responsive Cons 2 Not yet supporting Vue 3

What are some alternatives to Materialize, Bulma?

Bootstrap

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

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

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

Blazor

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

Quasar Framework

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

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

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 vs Materialize

Django vs Laravel vs Node.js

Bootstrap vs Foundation vs Material UI

Node.js vs Spring-Boot

Flyway vs Liquibase

Bulma vs Materialize: What are the differences?

Bulma and Materialize are both popular CSS frameworks that aim to simplify web development and provide pre-built styling components. However, there are several key differences between the two.

Customization: Bulma offers a highly customizable approach, allowing developers to easily modify and customize the framework's components. On the other hand, Materialize provides a more opinionated design philosophy, with fewer customization options and a focus on consistent visual aesthetics.
Size: Materialize has a larger overall file size compared to Bulma. This can impact website loading times, especially on slower internet connections. Bulma, on the other hand, focuses on providing a lightweight and minimalistic framework, resulting in faster load times.
Component Design: Bulma employs a mobile-first design approach, ensuring that its components are optimized for mobile devices. Materialize, on the other hand, takes a more desktop-first approach and provides components that are designed to work well on larger screens.
Flexbox: Bulma extensively uses the CSS Flexbox layout system, making it easier to create flexible and responsive designs. Materialize, on the other hand, relies on a combination of CSS classes and grid systems for its layout, providing slightly less flexibility in design.
JavaScript Integration: Materialize provides extensive JavaScript support and comes bundled with pre-built JavaScript components like dropdowns, modals, and carousels. Bulma, on the other hand, is a purely CSS framework and does not provide any built-in JavaScript functionality. However, developers can easily integrate third-party JavaScript libraries with Bulma.
Community and Documentation: Materialize has a larger and more active community, with a wealth of resources, tutorials, and third-party plugins available. It also has comprehensive documentation, making it easier for developers to get started. Bulma, while rapidly growing, has a smaller community and documentation, but still provides sufficient resources for developers to work with.

In summary, Bulma and Materialize differ in their customization options, file size, component design approach, layout systems, JavaScript integration, and community documentation support.