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. Frameworks
  5. Dropwizard vs Play

Dropwizard vs Play

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Play
Play
Stacks752
Followers609
Votes496
GitHub Stars12.6K
Forks4.1K
Dropwizard
Dropwizard
Stacks309
Followers366
Votes182
GitHub Stars8.6K
Forks3.4K

Dropwizard vs Play: What are the differences?

Introduction: When comparing Dropwizard with Play framework, there are key differences that can help developers make an informed decision based on their specific requirements.

  1. Architecture: Dropwizard is a bundled framework that comes with pre-configured libraries for building RESTful APIs, focusing on simplicity and expedited development. In contrast, Play framework is a full-fledged, comprehensive web framework that provides a more modular architecture encompassing a broader range of functionalities such as templating, persistence, and asynchronous operations.

  2. Language Compatibility: Dropwizard is primarily geared towards Java developers, leveraging the power of Java and its ecosystem. On the other hand, Play framework supports multiple languages including Java, Scala, and Groovy, offering developers the flexibility to choose the language that best suits their project requirements and expertise.

  3. ORM and Persistence: Dropwizard integrates seamlessly with the Hibernate ORM for database interaction and persistence tasks. In contrast, Play framework comes with its own built-in persistence layer known as eBeans, which simplifies database operations and eliminates the need for external ORM libraries.

  4. Concurrency Handling: Play framework excels in handling concurrent requests through its actor-based model using Akka toolkit, enabling scalable and efficient processing of multiple requests simultaneously. Dropwizard, while capable of handling concurrent requests, might require additional configuration and libraries for achieving similar levels of concurrency as Play.

  5. Community and Ecosystem: Play framework boasts a larger and more active community compared to Dropwizard, resulting in extensive documentation, vibrant forums, and a plethora of third-party libraries and plugins. Developers working with Play framework can benefit from a supportive community that offers assistance and resources for various development requirements.

  6. Deployment and Scalability: Dropwizard provides a straightforward deployment process, typically bundled as a self-contained JAR file ready for execution, making it easy to deploy and scale applications. Play framework, with its built-in support for reactive programming and distribution capabilities, offers enhanced scalability options for handling high traffic loads and demanding applications efficiently.

In Summary, Dropwizard and Play framework differ in architecture, language compatibility, ORM integration, concurrency handling, community support, and deployment strategies, catering to distinct development needs and preferences.

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 Play, Dropwizard

Hampton
Hampton

VP of Engineering at Veue

Oct 4, 2020

Decided

Starting a new company in 2020, with a whole new stack, is a really interesting opportunity for me to look back over the last 20 years of my career with web software and make the right decision for my company.

And, I went with the most radical decision– which is to ignore "sexy" / "hype" technologies almost entirely, and go back to a stack that I first used over 15 years ago.

For my purposes, we are building a video streaming platform, where I wanted rapid customer-facing feature development, high testability, simple scaling, and ease of hiring great, experienced talent. To be clear, our web platform is NOT responsible for handling the actual bits and bytes of the video itself, that's an entirely different stack. It simply needs to manage the business rules and the customers experience of the video content.

I reviewed a lot of different technologies, but none of them seemed to fit the bill as well as Rails did! The hype train had long left the station with Rails, and the community is a little more sparse than it was previously. And, to be honest, Ruby was the language that was easiest for developers, but I find that most languages out there have adopted many of it's innovations for ease of use – or at least corrected their own.

Even with all of that, Rails still seems like the best framework for developing web applications that are no more complex than they need to be. And that's key to me, because it's very easy to go use React and Redux and GraphQL and a whole host of AWS Lamba's to power my blog... but you simply don't actually NEED that.

There are two choices I made in our stack that were new for me personally, and very different than what I would have chosen even 5 years ago.

  1. Postgres - I decided to switch from MySql to Postgres for this project. I wanted to use UUID's instead of numeric primary keys, and knew I'd have a couple places where better JSON/object support would be key. Mysql remains far more popular, but almost every developer I respect has switched and preferred Postgres with a strong passion. It's not "sexy" but it's considered "better".

  2. Stimulus.js - This was definitely the biggest and wildest choice to make. Stimulus is a Javascript framework by my old friend Sam Stephenson (Prototype.js, rbenv, turbolinks) and DHH, and it is a sort of radical declaration that your Javascript in the browser can be both powerful and modern AND simple. It leans heavily on the belief that HTML-is-good and that data-* attributes are good. It focuses on the actions and interactions and not on the rendering aspects. It took me a while to wrap my head around, and I still have to remind myself, that server-side-HTML is how you solve many problems with this stack, and avoid trying to re-render things just in the browser. So far, I'm happy with this choice, but it is definitely a radical departure from the current trends.

471k views471k
Comments
Leonardo
Leonardo

Project manager and web developer at Revo Digital

Mar 22, 2021

Needs adviceonTypeScriptTypeScriptRailsRailsScalaScala

In the past few months, a project we're working on grew up quite fast. Since we're adding more and more features, I'm considering migrating my Express/TS REST API towards a more solid and more "enterprise-like" framework. Since I am experienced with TypeScript but not so much with Rails nor Play (Scala), I'd like to have some advice on which one could provide the best development experience, and most importantly, the smoothest paradigm transition from the JS/TS world. I've worked on some personal project with Rails, but I've found the Ruby language really distant from what the TypeScript ecosystem and syntax are, whereas on the opposite - during the brief tours I've taken in the past weeks - it's been a pleasure coding in Scala. Obviously, there are some key differences between the two languages - and the two frameworks consequently - but despite all the ROR automation and ease of use I don't despise at all Scala's pragmatic and great features such as static typing, pattern matching, and type inference. So... Please help me out with the choice! Regards

2.74M views2.74M
Comments
Hosam
Hosam

Senior Software Engineer

Apr 18, 2021

Review

If software performance is your top priority, then Scala/Play is probably best. If developer productivity is your top priority, then Ruby on Rails is the best choice in my opinion.

The Rails framework is batteries-included. The framework takes care of many things by default so that you don't have to. Logging, security, etc. It's also well-integrated; for example, controllers understand models out of the box. I had a better experience with RoR than with Play.

On the other hand, Scala and the JVM are more performant in general, so they can scale to serve more requests per second on the same hardware.

If you're considering serverless functions, then Scala is probably a better choice because it would be faster to load, giving you better economics.

53.4k views53.4k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

Play
Play
Dropwizard
Dropwizard

Play Framework makes it easy to build web applications with Java & Scala. Play is based on a lightweight, stateless, web-friendly architecture. Built on Akka, Play provides predictable and minimal resource consumption (CPU, memory, threads) for highly-scalable applications.

Dropwizard is a sneaky way of making fast Java web applications. Dropwizard pulls together stable, mature libraries from the Java ecosystem into a simple, light-weight package that lets you focus on getting things done.

Statistics
GitHub Stars
12.6K
GitHub Stars
8.6K
GitHub Forks
4.1K
GitHub Forks
3.4K
Stacks
752
Stacks
309
Followers
609
Followers
366
Votes
496
Votes
182
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 81
    Scala
  • 55
    Built on akka
  • 55
    Web-friendly architecture
  • 50
    Stateless
  • 47
    High-scalable
Cons
  • 3
    Evolves fast, keep up with releases
  • 1
    Unnecessarily complicated
Pros
  • 27
    Quick and easy to get a new http service going
  • 23
    Health monitoring
  • 20
    Easy setup
  • 20
    Metrics integration
  • 18
    Good conventions
Cons
  • 2
    Slightly more confusing dependencies
  • 1
    Not on ThoughtWorks radar since 2014
Integrations
No integrations available
Java
Java

What are some alternatives to Play, Dropwizard?

Node.js

Node.js

Node.js uses an event-driven, non-blocking I/O model that makes it lightweight and efficient, perfect for data-intensive real-time applications that run across distributed devices.

Rails

Rails

Rails is a web-application framework that includes everything needed to create database-backed web applications according to the Model-View-Controller (MVC) pattern.

Django

Django

Django is a high-level Python Web framework that encourages rapid development and clean, pragmatic design.

Laravel

Laravel

It is a web application framework with expressive, elegant syntax. It attempts to take the pain out of development by easing common tasks used in the majority of web projects, such as authentication, routing, sessions, and caching.

.NET

.NET

.NET is a general purpose development platform. With .NET, you can use multiple languages, editors, and libraries to build native applications for web, mobile, desktop, gaming, and IoT for Windows, macOS, Linux, Android, and more.

ASP.NET Core

ASP.NET Core

A free and open-source web framework, and higher performance than ASP.NET, developed by Microsoft and the community. It is a modular framework that runs on both the full .NET Framework, on Windows, and the cross-platform .NET Core.

Symfony

Symfony

It is written with speed and flexibility in mind. It allows developers to build better and easy to maintain websites with PHP..

Spring

Spring

A key element of Spring is infrastructural support at the application level: Spring focuses on the "plumbing" of enterprise applications so that teams can focus on application-level business logic, without unnecessary ties to specific deployment environments.

Spring Boot

Spring Boot

Spring Boot makes it easy to create stand-alone, production-grade Spring based Applications that you can "just run". We take an opinionated view of the Spring platform and third-party libraries so you can get started with minimum fuss. Most Spring Boot applications need very little Spring configuration.

Android SDK

Android SDK

Android provides a rich application framework that allows you to build innovative apps and games for mobile devices in a Java language environment.

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