Materialize vs Skeleton

Overview

Skeleton

Stacks54

Followers100

Votes24

GitHub Stars19.7K

Forks3.1K

Materialize

Stacks698

Followers1.2K

Votes557

GitHub Stars39.1K

Forks4.7K

Materialize vs Skeleton: What are the differences?

Materialize vs. Skeleton

Materialize and Skeleton are both popular front-end frameworks used to create responsive websites. While they share some similarities, they also have key differences that set them apart.

File Size: Materialize has a larger file size compared to Skeleton. This means that Skeleton is more lightweight and can lead to faster load times for websites utilizing it.
Grid System: Materialize uses a 12-column grid system, similar to Bootstrap, which provides more flexibility in designing responsive layouts. On the other hand, Skeleton uses a simpler 12-column grid system, making it easier for beginners to understand and work with.
Components: Materialize offers a wide range of pre-designed components such as buttons, navigation bars, and cards, making it easier to build complex layouts. In contrast, Skeleton focuses more on providing a basic set of styles for typography and forms, requiring more customization for additional components.
Customization: Materialize provides extensive customization options, allowing developers to modify the design to fit their brand aesthetic. Skeleton, on the other hand, offers a more minimalist approach, catering to developers who prefer a clean and simple design.
Browser Support: Materialize has better browser support compared to Skeleton, ensuring a consistent user experience across different browsers and devices. This can be crucial for websites targeting a wide audience.
Community Support: Materialize has a larger and more active community compared to Skeleton, resulting in more resources, tutorials, and plugins available for developers. This can be beneficial for troubleshooting and expanding functionality in projects.

In Summary, Materialize and Skeleton differ in file size, grid system complexity, components, customization options, browser support, and community size.

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

Skeleton	Materialize
Skeleton is a small collection of CSS files that can help you rapidly develop sites that look beautiful at any size, be it a 17" laptop screen or an iPhone.	A CSS Framework based on material design.
Responsive Grid Down To Mobile;Fast to Start;Style Agnostic;	Speeds up development;User Experience Focused;Easy to work with
Statistics
GitHub Stars 19.7K	GitHub Stars 39.1K
GitHub Forks 3.1K	GitHub Forks 4.7K
Stacks 54	Stacks 698
Followers 100	Followers 1.2K
Votes 24	Votes 557
Pros & Cons
Pros 9 Minimalist 6 Responsive 4 Simple 2 Fantastically straight forward 1 Lightweight Cons 0 Have to make design decisions	Pros 102 Google material design 74 Responsive 74 Easy to use 54 Modern looks 48 Open source Cons 7 Mobile errors 6 Poor Grid System 2 Unmaintained

What are some alternatives to Skeleton, Materialize?

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

Materialize vs Skeleton: What are the differences?

Materialize vs. Skeleton

Materialize and Skeleton are both popular front-end frameworks used to create responsive websites. While they share some similarities, they also have key differences that set them apart.

File Size: Materialize has a larger file size compared to Skeleton. This means that Skeleton is more lightweight and can lead to faster load times for websites utilizing it.
Grid System: Materialize uses a 12-column grid system, similar to Bootstrap, which provides more flexibility in designing responsive layouts. On the other hand, Skeleton uses a simpler 12-column grid system, making it easier for beginners to understand and work with.
Components: Materialize offers a wide range of pre-designed components such as buttons, navigation bars, and cards, making it easier to build complex layouts. In contrast, Skeleton focuses more on providing a basic set of styles for typography and forms, requiring more customization for additional components.
Customization: Materialize provides extensive customization options, allowing developers to modify the design to fit their brand aesthetic. Skeleton, on the other hand, offers a more minimalist approach, catering to developers who prefer a clean and simple design.
Browser Support: Materialize has better browser support compared to Skeleton, ensuring a consistent user experience across different browsers and devices. This can be crucial for websites targeting a wide audience.
Community Support: Materialize has a larger and more active community compared to Skeleton, resulting in more resources, tutorials, and plugins available for developers. This can be beneficial for troubleshooting and expanding functionality in projects.

In Summary, Materialize and Skeleton differ in file size, grid system complexity, components, customization options, browser support, and community size.