Pros of imaskjs

• More comprehensive and feature-rich, offering a wider range of masking options
• Better documentation and examples, making it easier for developers to implement
• Supports both vanilla JavaScript and various frameworks (React, Vue, Angular)

Cons of imaskjs

• Larger file size, which may impact page load times
• More complex API, potentially requiring a steeper learning curve
• Higher memory usage due to its extensive feature set

Code Comparison

maska:

import Maska from 'maska'

Maska.create('#phone', {
  mask: '(###) ###-####'
})

imaskjs:

import IMask from 'imask'

IMask(document.getElementById('phone'), {
  mask: '(000) 000-0000'
})

Summary

imaskjs offers more features and flexibility, making it suitable for complex masking requirements across various frameworks. However, this comes at the cost of a larger file size and potentially more complex implementation. maska, on the other hand, provides a simpler, lightweight solution that may be sufficient for basic masking needs. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and the level of customization needed.

Pros of Inputmask

• More extensive feature set, including support for various input types and complex masking scenarios
• Larger community and longer development history, potentially leading to better stability and support
• Offers more customization options and flexibility for advanced use cases

Cons of Inputmask

• Larger file size and potentially higher performance overhead
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API and configuration options
• May be overkill for simple masking requirements

Code Comparison

Maska:

import Maska from 'maska'

Maska.create('#phone', {
  mask: '(###) ###-####'
})

Inputmask:

import Inputmask from 'inputmask'

Inputmask({
  mask: '(999) 999-9999'
}).mask('#phone')

Both libraries offer similar basic functionality for input masking, but Inputmask provides more advanced options for complex scenarios. Maska's syntax is generally simpler and more straightforward for basic use cases, while Inputmask offers greater flexibility at the cost of increased complexity.

The choice between these libraries depends on the specific requirements of your project, with Maska being suitable for simpler masking needs and Inputmask better suited for more complex and diverse input masking scenarios.

Pros of Cleave.js

• More comprehensive input formatting options, including credit card, phone, date, and numeric inputs
• Supports multiple frameworks (React, Angular, etc.) out of the box
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of Cleave.js

• Larger file size and potentially higher performance overhead
• More complex setup and configuration for simple use cases
• Less flexible for custom mask patterns

Code Comparison

Maska:

import Maska from 'maska'

Maska.create('#phone', {
  mask: '+1 (###) ###-####'
})

Cleave.js:

import Cleave from 'cleave.js'

new Cleave('#phone', {
  phone: true,
  phoneRegionCode: 'US'
})

Both libraries offer straightforward ways to implement input masking, but Cleave.js provides more built-in options for specific input types, while Maska focuses on simplicity and customization through mask patterns. Cleave.js may be preferred for projects requiring diverse input formatting, while Maska could be more suitable for lightweight implementations with custom mask patterns.

Pros of text-mask

• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Supports multiple frameworks (React, Angular, Vue, vanilla JS)
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of text-mask

• Larger bundle size due to multiple framework support
• More complex setup process for some use cases
• Less flexible for custom mask patterns

Code Comparison

text-mask:

import { createTextMaskInputElement } from 'text-mask-core'

const maskedInputElement = createTextMaskInputElement({
  inputElement: document.querySelector('#my-input-element'),
  mask: ['(', /[1-9]/, /\d/, /\d/, ')', ' ', /\d/, /\d/, /\d/, '-', /\d/, /\d/, /\d/, /\d/]
})

maska:

import Maska from 'maska'

const mask = new Maska('#my-input-element', {
  mask: '(#00) 000-0000'
})

Key Differences

• text-mask uses an array-based mask definition, while maska uses a string-based pattern
• text-mask requires more setup code, but offers more granular control
• maska provides a simpler API and more intuitive mask patterns for common use cases

Both libraries offer input masking functionality, but they cater to different needs. text-mask is more suitable for complex, multi-framework projects, while maska is ideal for simpler use cases and quicker implementation.

Pros of jQuery-Mask-Plugin

• Extensive browser support, including older versions
• Large community and long-standing reputation
• Comprehensive documentation and examples

Cons of jQuery-Mask-Plugin

• Dependency on jQuery library
• Larger file size due to additional features
• Less frequent updates and maintenance

Code Comparison

jQuery-Mask-Plugin:

$('#date').mask('00/00/0000');
$('#phone').mask('(000) 000-0000');
$('#money').mask('000.000.000.000.000,00', {reverse: true});

Maska:

import Maska from 'maska'

Maska.create('#date', {mask: '##/##/####'})
Maska.create('#phone', {mask: '(###) ###-####'})
Maska.create('#money', {mask: '###.###.###.###.###,##', reversed: true})

Key Differences

• Maska is a lightweight, modern alternative with no dependencies
• jQuery-Mask-Plugin offers more customization options
• Maska uses a simpler API and is easier to integrate with modern frameworks
• jQuery-Mask-Plugin has better support for complex masking scenarios

Performance

• Maska generally performs better due to its lightweight nature
• jQuery-Mask-Plugin may have slower performance on older browsers

Compatibility

• jQuery-Mask-Plugin works well with older projects using jQuery
• Maska is more suitable for modern JavaScript applications and frameworks

Pros of vanilla-masker

• Lightweight and dependency-free, making it easier to integrate into projects
• Supports both browser and Node.js environments
• Offers a wider range of masking patterns, including custom patterns

Cons of vanilla-masker

• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates
• Limited documentation and examples compared to Maska
• Lacks some advanced features like dynamic masking

Code Comparison

Maska:

import Maska from 'maska'

Maska.create('#phone', {
  mask: '+1 (###) ###-####'
})

vanilla-masker:

import VMasker from 'vanilla-masker'

VMasker(document.querySelector('#phone')).maskPattern('+1 (999) 999-9999')

Both libraries offer similar functionality for basic masking, but Maska provides a more modern API and additional features. Maska uses a declarative approach with options, while vanilla-masker uses method chaining. Maska's syntax is generally more intuitive and easier to read.

Maska offers better TypeScript support and more frequent updates, making it a more robust choice for modern web development. However, vanilla-masker's simplicity and lack of dependencies may be preferable for smaller projects or those with strict size constraints.