Abaabil vs Chakra UI
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 Chakra UI, over the 22 it offers, comes to 111,470 B, or 15x the size.
What Chakra UI is
A styled component set built around style props, with accessibility taken seriously throughout and a strong theming story.
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 popover at 88x. Chakra UI has no equivalent for 1 of the twenty-three (toolbar), so those are left out rather than counted as a win.
| Component | abaabil | Chakra UI | ratio |
|---|---|---|---|
| button | 557 | 13,571 | 24x |
| dialog | 580 | 33,085 | 57x |
| popover | 495 | 43,758 | 88x |
| menu | 1,120 | 46,532 | 42x |
| tooltip | 459 | 35,081 | 76x |
| combobox | 1,097 | 47,282 | 43x |
| input | 501 | 16,562 | 33x |
| textarea | 506 | 16,562 | 33x |
| file | 500 | 27,314 | 55x |
| checkbox | 534 | 23,842 | 45x |
| radio | 444 | 23,952 | 54x |
| switch | 423 | 22,875 | 54x |
| select | 530 | 17,426 | 33x |
| slider | 705 | 27,517 | 39x |
| accordion | 364 | 24,467 | 67x |
| tabs | 786 | 25,464 | 32x |
| breadcrumb | 335 | 13,776 | 41x |
| pagination | 689 | 22,337 | 32x |
| progress | 493 | 20,738 | 42x |
| alert | 341 | 14,048 | 41x |
| avatar | 460 | 20,968 | 46x |
| badge | 267 | 12,990 | 49x |
| all of them, one bundle | 7,364 | 111,470 | 15x |
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 Chakra UI 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 Chakra UI instead
You like composing styles as props rather than as CSS, and you want a full kit that will not fight you on accessibility. For teams who dislike writing stylesheets, the ergonomics are the point.
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.