Compare
Nine libraries, each measured the same way on the same day: every entry point bundled with its own module graph, gzipped, React treated as external. All twenty-three abaabil components together come to 7,364 B. Pick a library for the per-component breakdown and an honest account of when to choose it over this one.
All of them at a glance
The figure is every component that library offers, bundled together once, which is the fairest single number: a large shared runtime is paid for once rather than per component.
| Library | components | all of them | ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| abaabil | 23 | 7,364 | 1x |
| React Bootstrap | 21 | 34,319 | 4.7x |
| Radix Primitives | 14 | 48,712 | 6.6x |
| Headless UI | 13 | 68,004 | 9.2x |
| shadcn/ui | 21 | 74,098 | 10x |
| Mantine | 22 | 88,953 | 12x |
| React Aria Components | 19 | 89,201 | 12x |
| Chakra UI | 22 | 111,470 | 15x |
| Material UI | 22 | 117,424 | 16x |
| Ant Design | 22 | 220,904 | 30x |
A ratio is not an argument on its own. Several of these libraries carry weight abaabil has no answer for, and two of them measure light here because their cost is in a stylesheet this table does not count. Each page says which, and the Why page has the method and every caveat in one place.
The honest version
abaabil is twenty-three components and stops there. No date picker, no data grid, no virtualised list, no plans for any of them. Every library on this list is better than it at something, and for most of them that something is breadth. If the component you need is missing here, none of these numbers matter to your decision.
What the numbers are for is the case where two libraries both have what you need. Then it is worth knowing that one of them costs 7,364 B for all of it.