Pros of text-mask

• More flexible and can be used with various JavaScript frameworks, not limited to Angular
• Supports a wider range of input types, including number inputs
• Has a more extensive set of built-in mask patterns

Cons of text-mask

• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates
• May require more setup and configuration for specific use cases
• Lacks some Angular-specific optimizations and integrations

Code Comparison

text-mask:

import createNumberMask from 'text-mask-addons/dist/createNumberMask'

const numberMask = createNumberMask({
  prefix: '$',
  suffix: '.00'
})

<input mask={numberMask} />

ngx-mask:

<input type="text" mask="separator.2" prefix="$" suffix=".00" [dropSpecialCharacters]="false">

Both libraries offer similar functionality for masking input fields, but ngx-mask provides a more concise and Angular-friendly syntax. text-mask requires importing additional functions and creating mask configurations, while ngx-mask allows for inline mask definitions within the template.

text-mask offers more flexibility for use across different frameworks, but ngx-mask provides a more streamlined experience for Angular developers. The choice between the two depends on the specific project requirements and the development environment.

Pros of Inputmask

• More versatile, supporting various input types beyond just Angular
• Extensive documentation and examples
• Larger community and longer development history

Cons of Inputmask

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Potentially heavier in terms of file size and performance

Code Comparison

ngx-mask:

<input type="text" mask="000-000-0000" prefix="+1 ">

Inputmask:

Inputmask("999-999-9999", {
  placeholder: "___-___-____",
  clearIncomplete: true
}).mask(document.getElementById("phone"));

ngx-mask is more straightforward for Angular applications, with a simpler directive-based approach. Inputmask offers more flexibility but requires more setup.

Both libraries provide similar core functionality for input masking, but their implementation and usage differ. ngx-mask is tailored for Angular, making it easier to integrate into Angular projects. Inputmask, being framework-agnostic, offers broader applicability across different web technologies.

The choice between these libraries depends on the specific project requirements, development environment, and the level of customization needed for input masking.

Pros of cleave.js

• Framework-agnostic, can be used with any JavaScript project
• Supports both numeric and date/time formatting
• Lightweight and has no dependencies

Cons of cleave.js

• Less Angular-specific features compared to ngx-mask
• May require more manual configuration for complex use cases
• Not actively maintained (last commit over 2 years ago)

Code Comparison

cleave.js:

var cleave = new Cleave('.input-phone', {
    phone: true,
    phoneRegionCode: 'US'
});

ngx-mask:

<input mask="(000) 000-0000" prefix="+1 " [showMaskTyped]="true">

Both libraries provide input masking functionality, but ngx-mask is specifically designed for Angular applications, offering a more integrated experience with Angular's template syntax. cleave.js, on the other hand, provides a more general-purpose solution that can be used in various JavaScript environments.

While cleave.js offers flexibility across different frameworks, ngx-mask provides a more streamlined experience for Angular developers with its directive-based approach. The choice between the two depends on the specific project requirements and the development environment.

Pros of jQuery-Mask-Plugin

• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing jQuery projects
• Supports a wide range of browsers, including older versions
• Offers a simple and intuitive API for creating custom masks

Cons of jQuery-Mask-Plugin

• Requires jQuery as a dependency, which may increase overall bundle size
• Limited to jQuery-based projects, not suitable for modern frameworks
• Less actively maintained compared to ngx-mask

Code Comparison

jQuery-Mask-Plugin:

$('#date').mask('00/00/0000');
$('#phone').mask('(000) 000-0000');
$('#custom').mask('AA-00-SSSS');

ngx-mask:

<input mask="00/00/0000" [ngxMask]="'date'">
<input mask="(000) 000-0000" [ngxMask]="'phone'">
<input [mask]="'AA-00-SSSS'" [ngxMask]="'custom'">

Both libraries provide similar functionality for input masking, but ngx-mask is specifically designed for Angular applications, offering tighter integration with the framework. jQuery-Mask-Plugin is more versatile for general web development but may not be the best choice for modern, component-based applications.

Pros of vanilla-masker

• Framework-agnostic, can be used with any JavaScript project
• Lightweight and has minimal dependencies
• Supports both browser and Node.js environments

Cons of vanilla-masker

• Less actively maintained (last update was several years ago)
• Fewer built-in mask patterns compared to ngx-mask
• Limited documentation and examples

Code Comparison

ngx-mask:

<input type="text" mask="(000) 000-0000" prefix="+1 ">

vanilla-masker:

VMasker(document.querySelector("input")).maskPattern("(999) 999-9999");

Summary

vanilla-masker is a lightweight, framework-agnostic masking library that works in both browser and Node.js environments. It offers flexibility but has fewer built-in patterns and less active maintenance compared to ngx-mask. ngx-mask, on the other hand, is specifically designed for Angular applications and provides more extensive features and regular updates. The choice between the two depends on the project requirements, framework preferences, and the need for ongoing support and updates.

Pros of jquery.maskedinput

• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing jQuery projects
• Supports a wide range of browsers, including older versions
• Simple and intuitive syntax for defining masks

Cons of jquery.maskedinput

• Requires jQuery as a dependency, which may not be ideal for modern projects
• Less actively maintained compared to ngx-mask
• Limited to input elements, while ngx-mask can be applied to various Angular components

Code Comparison

jquery.maskedinput:

$("#phone").mask("(999) 999-9999");
$("#date").mask("99/99/9999");

ngx-mask:

<input mask="(000) 000-0000" type="text">
<input mask="00/00/0000" type="text">

Summary

jquery.maskedinput is a solid choice for jQuery-based projects, offering simplicity and broad browser support. However, ngx-mask is more suitable for modern Angular applications, providing better integration with the framework and more active development. The syntax for both libraries is relatively straightforward, with ngx-mask using Angular's template-driven approach and jquery.maskedinput utilizing jQuery selectors.