Material Components Web vs Shoelace

Overview

Material Components Web

Stacks12

Followers23

Votes0

GitHub Stars17.1K

Forks2.1K

Shoelace

Stacks12

Followers25

Votes0

GitHub Stars13.7K

Forks907

Material Components Web vs Shoelace: What are the differences?

Styling Approach: Material Components Web primarily follows Google's Material Design guidelines, offering a modern and clean design language with predefined styles and components. In contrast, Shoelace focuses on simplicity and minimalism, allowing for more customizability and flexibility in styling.
Component Library: Material Components Web provides a comprehensive library of components ranging from buttons to navigation drawers, following a consistent visual language. On the other hand, Shoelace offers a smaller set of essential components, prioritizing performance and simplicity over sheer quantity.
Browser Support: Material Components Web is well-supported across different browsers and devices, ensuring a consistent user experience. Shoelace also focuses on cross-browser compatibility, but may not have the same level of support for older browsers as Material Components Web.
Interactive Features: Material Components Web includes interactive components like sliders, switches, and ripples, enhancing user engagement and interactivity. Meanwhile, Shoelace emphasizes lightweight, fast-loading components without as many interactive features, catering to simpler use cases.
Community and Documentation: Material Components Web benefits from Google's strong community and extensive documentation, making it easier for developers to find resources and support. Shoelace, while growing in popularity, may have a smaller community and documentation base compared to Material Components Web.
Customization Options: Material Components Web offers a wide range of customization options within the Material Design framework, allowing developers to adhere closely to design guidelines. Shoelace, on the other hand, provides more flexibility for customization outside of a specific design system, catering to a broader range of visual styles.

In Summary, Material Components Web and Shoelace differ in styling approach, component library, browser support, interactive features, community and documentation, as well as customization options.

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

Detailed Comparison

Material Components Web	Shoelace
It helps developers execute Material Design. Developed by a core team of engineers and UX designers at Google, these components enable a reliable development workflow to build beautiful and functional web projects.	It is a collection of professionally designed, everyday UI components built on a framework-agnostic technology.
Modular; Customizable; Material Design UI components	Works with all frameworks; Works with CDNs ; Fully customizable with CSS ; Built with accessibility in mind ; Open source
Statistics
GitHub Stars 17.1K	GitHub Stars 13.7K
GitHub Forks 2.1K	GitHub Forks 907
Stacks 12	Stacks 12
Followers 23	Followers 25
Votes 0	Votes 0
Integrations
React Vue.js AngularJS	React Vue.js AngularJS

What are some alternatives to Material Components Web, Shoelace?

Material-UI

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

Ant Design

An enterprise-class UI design language and React-based implementation. Graceful UI components out of the box, base on React Component. A npm + webpack + babel + dora + dva development framework.

React Rainbow

It is a collection of components that will reliably help you build your application in a snap. More than 60 components built on top of React.

Chakra UI

It is a simple, modular and accessible component library that gives you all the building blocks you need to build your React applications.

MD Bootstrap

It is a UI kit built with an aim to cut the time developers need to create their websites by taking all the best features from vanilla Bootstrap and enhancing them with a distinctive design from Google.

ElementUI

It is not focused on Mobile development, mainly because it lacks responsiveness on mobile WebViews.

Ionicons

Premium designed icons for use in web, iOS, Android, and desktop apps. Support for SVG and web font. Completely open source and MIT licensed.

Radix Primitives

It is a low-level UI component library with a focus on accessibility, customization and developer experience. You can use these components either as the base layer of your design system, or adopt them incrementally.

DevExtreme

From Angular and React, to ASP.NET Core or Vue, it includes a comprehensive collection of high-performance and responsive UI widgets for use in traditional web and next-gen mobile applications. The suite ships with a feature-complete data grid, interactive charts widgets, data editors, and much more.

jQWidgets

It is a software framework with widgets, themes, input validation, drag & drop plug-in, data adapters, built-in WAI-ARIA accessibility, internationalization and MVVM support. It is built on the open standards and technologies HTML5, CSS, JavaScript and jQuery.

Related Comparisons

Material Components Web vs Shoelace: What are the differences?

Styling Approach: Material Components Web primarily follows Google's Material Design guidelines, offering a modern and clean design language with predefined styles and components. In contrast, Shoelace focuses on simplicity and minimalism, allowing for more customizability and flexibility in styling.
Component Library: Material Components Web provides a comprehensive library of components ranging from buttons to navigation drawers, following a consistent visual language. On the other hand, Shoelace offers a smaller set of essential components, prioritizing performance and simplicity over sheer quantity.
Browser Support: Material Components Web is well-supported across different browsers and devices, ensuring a consistent user experience. Shoelace also focuses on cross-browser compatibility, but may not have the same level of support for older browsers as Material Components Web.
Interactive Features: Material Components Web includes interactive components like sliders, switches, and ripples, enhancing user engagement and interactivity. Meanwhile, Shoelace emphasizes lightweight, fast-loading components without as many interactive features, catering to simpler use cases.
Community and Documentation: Material Components Web benefits from Google's strong community and extensive documentation, making it easier for developers to find resources and support. Shoelace, while growing in popularity, may have a smaller community and documentation base compared to Material Components Web.
Customization Options: Material Components Web offers a wide range of customization options within the Material Design framework, allowing developers to adhere closely to design guidelines. Shoelace, on the other hand, provides more flexibility for customization outside of a specific design system, catering to a broader range of visual styles.

In Summary, Material Components Web and Shoelace differ in styling approach, component library, browser support, interactive features, community and documentation, as well as customization options.

Material Components Web vs Shoelace

Overview