Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Material Design vs Materialize: What are the differences?
Introduction
Material Design and Materialize are both design languages created by Google that provide guidelines and components for creating visually appealing and easy-to-use interfaces.
1. Color palette: One of the key differences between Material Design and Materialize is the color palette they use. Material Design offers a wide range of vibrant and bold colors, allowing for more creativity and customization. On the other hand, Materialize has a more limited color palette, focusing on a more subdued and subtle aesthetic.
2. Typography: Another difference lies in the typography styles used in Material Design and Materialize. Material Design emphasizes using a combination of fonts for headings and body text, while Materialize primarily relies on a single font for consistency and simplicity.
3. Components and customization: Material Design provides a more comprehensive set of components and guidelines, allowing for greater flexibility and customization. Materialize, on the other hand, offers a more pre-defined and opinionated set of components, making it easier to get started but potentially limiting the level of customization.
4. Animations and transitions: Material Design places a strong emphasis on fluid animations and smooth transitions, creating a seamless user experience. Materialize also incorporates animations, but they may be less pronounced and fewer in number compared to Material Design.
5. Support and community: Material Design has a larger support and community base, as it is the official design language by Google. This means there are more resources, tutorials, and community-driven projects available for developers. Materialize has a dedicated community as well but may have a smaller scope compared to Material Design.
6. Compatibility and integration: Material Design is designed to be platform-agnostic and can be used on different devices and platforms, including web, mobile, and desktop. Materialize, on the other hand, is primarily focused on web development and may have better integration with web technologies and frameworks.
In Summary, Material Design offers a wider color palette, more component customization, and a larger support community compared to Materialize, while Materialize focuses on simplicity, a consistent typography style, and better web integration.
I am a bit confused when to choose Bootstrap vs Material Design or Tailwind CSS, and why? I mean, in which kind of projects we can work with bootstrap/Material/Tailwind CSS? If the design is made up on the grid, we prefer bootstrap, and if flat design, then material design. Similarly, when do we choose tailwind CSS?
Any suggestion would be appreciated?
Hi Ashish,
If you need minimal work to be done from your end and like most of the components / design available out of the box - go with Bootstrap. This is the oldest and has the widest adoption and a whole range of components built out by others.
If you like Material design, this is a good choice too. Please note that Bootstrap also has a Material theme, though it is not as native.
Both of these above frameworks are bulky and has more than what you may need.
If you like to build micro-components in a elegant way, TailwindCSS is the way to go.
I don't know about material design.
You would go with Bootstrap if you want to prototype / build something without bothering about the design at all and you are OK if everything looks kinda template-y, using bootstrap out of the box components.
Go with Tailwind if you need a sleek design, a user interface where building with components will be important (because tailwind strongly favors component-based UI), and you know you will need to extend the built-in classes with your own (because tailwind is very easy to extend)
I would personally recommend tailwind over bootstrap any day of the week.
Tailwind is great you don't have to mess with naming things and it is so much more flexible than the cookie cutter bootstrap, but I don't know about material UI. I recommend tailwind it's super simple to learn and has great code snippets.
Put simply, you should use Tailwind regardless. It is a great addition to whatever you use because it removes the hassle of writing CSS.
Ant Design offers the most components with JS and CSS taken care of. They look clean, professional, and usable.
We paired this with Bulma for making the containers and structure reactive. Bulma (for react) make it easy to just add a section, container, and content and have it work on all platforms.
We also use Geist UI, though not recognized by Stack share, for its simple and modern feel. Highly recommend Geist if you want modern components for complicated UI's
Pros of Material Design
- They really set a new bar in design5
- An intuitive design4
- Simply, And Beautiful3
- Many great libraries2
- Composants0
Pros of Materialize
- Google material design102
- Easy to use74
- Responsive74
- Modern looks54
- Open source48
- Good documentation42
- Code examples37
- Extremely light - 29kb29
- Flexible28
- Great Support15
- It looks beautiful10
- Very nice looking components to quickly build out8
- Smooth animation7
- Great Grid System6
- Great4
- Ruby gem to integrate in 2 seconds flat4
- Angular2 Support3
- MIT Lisence2
- Friendly api, easy setup, good documentation2
- Easy setup2
- React1
- Grid system1
- Because of the easy to use and very editable library1
- Responsivness1
- Jibberish1
- Friendly Api1
- Better class name0
- Rtl support0
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Material Design
- Sometimes, it can hang the browser2
Cons of Materialize
- Mobile errors7
- Poor Grid System6
- Unmaintained2
