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. Templating Languages & Extensions
  4. Templating Languages And Extensions
  5. Liquid vs Nunjucks

Liquid vs Nunjucks

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Nunjucks
Nunjucks
Stacks86
Followers91
Votes6
GitHub Stars8.8K
Forks647
Liquid
Liquid
Stacks261
Followers126
Votes0
GitHub Stars11.5K
Forks1.5K

Liquid vs Nunjucks: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this markdown code, we will discuss the key differences between Liquid and Nunjucks templating languages, highlighting the specific distinctions between the two.

1. Syntax:

Liquid uses a simple and intuitive syntax that is easy to read and write, with tags and filters enclosed in double curly braces. On the other hand, Nunjucks employs a more complex syntax, providing flexibility by allowing using delimiters and tags enclosed within its own syntax.

2. Template Inheritance:

Liquid lacks native support for template inheritance, making it less suitable for complex layouts with multiple levels of inheritance. In contrast, Nunjucks provides native and robust support for template inheritance, allowing for a more modular and organized approach to building layouts.

3. Custom Filters:

While both Liquid and Nunjucks allow the use of filters to modify and format data, Nunjucks provides more extensive and flexible support for creating custom filters. With Nunjucks, developers can easily define and use custom filters to manipulate data according to their specific requirements.

4. JavaScript-based:

Nunjucks, being inspired by Jinja2, is primarily JavaScript-based and is often used in JavaScript environments like Node.js. Whereas Liquid is primarily used in Ruby environments like Jekyll, making it more suited for Ruby developers.

5. Performance and Caching:

Due to its simpler syntax and design, Liquid generally performs better and is easier to cache compared to Nunjucks. Nunjucks, being more feature-rich and extensible, may require additional resources and overhead for rendering, impacting performance in larger-scale applications.

6. Compatibility:

Liquid is widely supported across various platforms and frameworks, including Jekyll, Shopify, and GitHub Pages. In contrast, while Nunjucks is gaining popularity, it may require additional configuration and integration in some platforms, limiting its compatibility to certain frameworks and environments.

In Summary, Liquid and Nunjucks differ in syntax simplicity, template inheritance support, custom filter flexibility, language association, performance and caching characteristics, as well as platform compatibility.

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 Nunjucks, Liquid

Asad
Asad

Software Engineer at Lisec Automation

Jun 15, 2020

Needs adviceon.NET.NETHandlebars.jsHandlebars.js

@All: I am searching for the best template engine for .NET. I started looking into several template engines, including the Dotliquid, Handlebars.js, Scriban, and Razorlight. I found handlebar a bit difficult to use when using the loops and condition because you need to register for helper first. DotLiquid and Scriban were easy to use and in Razorlight I did not find the example for loops.

Can you please suggest which template engine is best suited for the use of conditional/list and looping and why? Or if anybody could provide me a resource or link where I can compare which is best?

Thanks In Advance

240k views240k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

Nunjucks
Nunjucks
Liquid
Liquid

Rich Powerful language with block inheritance, autoescaping, macros, asynchronous control, and more. Heavily inspired by jinja2. It supports all modern browsers.

It is an open-source template language written in Ruby. It is the backbone of Shopify themes and is used to load dynamic content on storefronts. It is safe, customer facing template language for flexible web apps.

-
Render templates directly from the database;Smarty (PHP) style template engines;Template engine which does HTML just as well as emails;Allow your users to edit the appearance of your application but don't want them to run insecure code on your server
Statistics
GitHub Stars
8.8K
GitHub Stars
11.5K
GitHub Forks
647
GitHub Forks
1.5K
Stacks
86
Stacks
261
Followers
91
Followers
126
Votes
6
Votes
0
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 4
    Supported by Mozilla
  • 2
    Easy sintaxis like JS
No community feedback yet
Integrations
JavaScript
JavaScript
Google Chrome
Google Chrome
Firefox
Firefox
VTEX
VTEX
Zendesk
Zendesk
Voog
Voog
Drip
Drip
Ruby
Ruby
Jekyll
Jekyll
Fedora
Fedora
Locomotive CMS
Locomotive CMS

What are some alternatives to Nunjucks, Liquid?

TypeScript

TypeScript

TypeScript is a language for application-scale JavaScript development. It's a typed superset of JavaScript that compiles to plain JavaScript.

Pug

Pug

This project was formerly known as "Jade." Pug is a high performance template engine heavily influenced by Haml and implemented with JavaScript for Node.js and browsers.

Handlebars.js

Handlebars.js

Handlebars.js is an extension to the Mustache templating language created by Chris Wanstrath. Handlebars.js and Mustache are both logicless templating languages that keep the view and the code separated like we all know they should be.

Mustache

Mustache

Mustache is a logic-less template syntax. It can be used for HTML, config files, source code - anything. It works by expanding tags in a template using values provided in a hash or object. We call it "logic-less" because there are no if statements, else clauses, or for loops. Instead there are only tags. Some tags are replaced with a value, some nothing, and others a series of values.

Slim Lang

Slim Lang

Slim is a template language whose goal is to reduce the view syntax to the essential parts without becoming cryptic. It started as an exercise to see how much could be removed from a standard html template (<, >, closing tags, etc...). As more people took an interest in Slim, the functionality grew and so did the flexibility of the syntax.

RactiveJS

RactiveJS

Ractive was originally created at theguardian.com to produce news applications. Ractive takes your Mustache templates and transforms them into a lightweight representation of the DOM – then when your data changes, it intelligently updates the real DOM.

EJS

EJS

It is a simple templating language that lets you generate HTML markup with plain JavaScript. No religiousness about how to organize things. No reinvention of iteration and control-flow. It's just plain JavaScript.

Jinja

Jinja

It is a full featured template engine for Python. It has full unicode support, an optional integrated sandboxed execution environment, widely used and BSD licensed.

Twig

Twig

It is a modern template engine for PHP. It is flexible, fast, and secure. Its syntax originates from Jinja and Django templates.

Hogan.js

Hogan.js

Hogan.js is a 3.4k JS templating engine developed at Twitter. Use it as a part of your asset packager to compile templates ahead of time or include it in your browser to handle dynamic templates.

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