Abaabil vs Ant Design
Both libraries, measured the same way on the same day: each entry point bundled with its own module graph, gzipped, React treated as external. All twenty-three abaabil components together come to 7,364 B. The same set from Ant Design, over the 22 it offers, comes to 220,904 B, or 30x the size.
What Ant Design is
An enterprise design language with one of the largest component sets in React: tables, forms, transfer lists, tree selects, calendars, and a complete set of locale bundles.
Per component, gzipped
abaabil's column is its a11y tier, the one most applications should use. 22 components are directly comparable; the widest gap is breadcrumb at 278x. Ant Design has no equivalent for 1 of the twenty-three (toolbar), so those are left out rather than counted as a win.
| Component | abaabil | Ant Design | ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| button | 557 | 57,737 | 104x |
| dialog | 580 | 88,259 | 152x |
| popover | 495 | 68,942 | 139x |
| menu | 1,120 | 101,681 | 91x |
| tooltip | 459 | 67,663 | 147x |
| combobox | 1,097 | 95,635 | 87x |
| input | 501 | 89,518 | 179x |
| textarea | 506 | 89,518 | 177x |
| file | 500 | 95,839 | 192x |
| checkbox | 534 | 65,129 | 122x |
| radio | 444 | 66,430 | 150x |
| switch | 423 | 54,089 | 128x |
| select | 530 | 95,008 | 179x |
| slider | 705 | 77,544 | 110x |
| accordion | 364 | 53,996 | 148x |
| tabs | 786 | 71,586 | 91x |
| breadcrumb | 335 | 93,251 | 278x |
| pagination | 689 | 105,612 | 153x |
| progress | 493 | 75,821 | 154x |
| alert | 341 | 37,285 | 109x |
| avatar | 460 | 71,435 | 155x |
| badge | 267 | 50,982 | 191x |
| all of them, one bundle | 7,364 | 220,904 | 30x |
The last row matters more than any single one above it. A library with a large shared runtime pays for it once, so the gap always narrows as you use more of it. Quoting only the widest row would be the easiest way to mislead you with real numbers.
abaabil's figures are JavaScript only, the same as every other column here, and unlike Ant Design it arrives already styled. That cost is real and tracked separately rather than folded in: the whole stylesheet is 5,217 B gzipped if you import all of it. The method, and every library at once, is on the Why page.
When to choose Ant Design instead
You are building an admin console or a data-heavy back office. Ant Design’s table alone does work that would take months to reproduce, and the form layer is genuinely excellent. Its weight is the price of a component set that assumes you need everything.
abaabil is twenty-three components and stops there. It has no date picker, no data grid, no virtualised list, and no plans for any of them. If the thing you need is on that list, the size comparison above is irrelevant to your decision, and you should take the library that has it.
If abaabil is the right fit
Setup is four steps and the first one is npm i abaabil. Every component has its own page with a live example at the tier you would actually import. Or read when not to use it first, which is the section written to talk you out of it.