Pros of Font-Awesome

• Larger icon set with over 7,000 icons compared to Open Iconic's 223
• Regular updates and new icon additions
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of Font-Awesome

• Larger file size due to the extensive icon set
• Some advanced features require a paid Pro version
• Steeper learning curve for customization

Code Comparison

Open Iconic:

<span class="oi oi-account-login" title="account-login" aria-hidden="true"></span>

Font-Awesome:

<i class="fas fa-sign-in-alt"></i>

Key Differences

• Open Iconic is completely free and open-source, while Font-Awesome has free and paid versions
• Font-Awesome offers more customization options, including different styles (solid, regular, light)
• Open Iconic has a smaller footprint, making it suitable for projects with limited resources
• Font-Awesome provides better browser compatibility and responsive design features

Use Cases

• Open Iconic: Ideal for small projects or when a minimal icon set is needed
• Font-Awesome: Better suited for larger projects requiring a diverse icon set and frequent updates

Pros of Feather

• Larger icon set with over 280 icons compared to Open Iconic's 223
• More modern and minimalist design aesthetic
• Active development and regular updates

Cons of Feather

• Slightly larger file sizes for individual icons
• Less customization options out-of-the-box
• Fewer file format options (SVG and JavaScript only)

Code Comparison

Open Iconic (HTML):

<img src="open-iconic/svg/account-login.svg" alt="Login">

Feather (JavaScript):

import { icons } from 'feather-icons'

const loginIcon = icons['log-in'].toSvg()
document.body.innerHTML = loginIcon

Both libraries offer simple implementation, but Feather provides a JavaScript API for more dynamic usage, while Open Iconic focuses on straightforward HTML embedding.

Open Iconic offers more file format options, including PNG and WebP, making it potentially more versatile for different use cases. Feather, on the other hand, concentrates on SVG and JavaScript integration, which aligns well with modern web development practices.

Feather's design language is more consistent and follows current trends, while Open Iconic has a slightly dated appearance but may be preferred for certain retro or skeuomorphic designs.

Pros of Material Design Icons

• Larger icon set with over 1,000 icons in various styles and themes
• Regular updates and additions to the icon library
• Comprehensive documentation and guidelines for usage

Cons of Material Design Icons

• Larger file size due to the extensive collection
• May require more effort to integrate into projects due to its size
• Some icons might be too specific for general use cases

Code Comparison

Material Design Icons:

<link href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/icon?family=Material+Icons" rel="stylesheet">
<i class="material-icons">favorite</i>

Open Iconic:

<link href="open-iconic/font/css/open-iconic.css" rel="stylesheet">
<span class="oi" data-glyph="heart"></span>

Key Differences

• Material Design Icons offers a more extensive and diverse icon set
• Open Iconic has a smaller footprint and simpler integration
• Material Design Icons follows Google's design language, while Open Iconic has a more neutral style
• Open Iconic is no longer actively maintained, whereas Material Design Icons receives regular updates

Both icon sets are open-source and free to use, making them suitable options for various web and application projects. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements, design preferences, and the need for ongoing support and updates.

Pros of Octicons

• Larger icon set with over 200 icons, providing more variety
• Regularly updated and maintained by GitHub, ensuring compatibility with current design trends
• Available in multiple formats (SVG, PNG, WebFont) for versatile usage

Cons of Octicons

• More complex implementation due to multiple file formats and options
• Larger file size, potentially impacting load times for web applications
• Specific to GitHub's design language, which may not fit all projects

Code Comparison

Octicons (React component usage):

import { Octicon, BeakerIcon } from '@primer/octicons-react'

function MyComponent() {
  return <Octicon icon={BeakerIcon} size="medium" />
}

Open Iconic (HTML usage):

<span class="oi oi-beaker" title="beaker" aria-hidden="true"></span>

Summary

Octicons offers a more extensive and regularly updated icon set, ideal for projects aligned with GitHub's design language. However, it may be overkill for simpler projects. Open Iconic provides a more straightforward implementation but with fewer icons and less frequent updates. The choice between the two depends on the specific needs of your project, such as design requirements, icon variety, and implementation complexity.

Pros of MaterialDesign

• Larger icon set with over 7,000 icons compared to Open Iconic's 223
• Regular updates and active community contributions
• Supports multiple file formats (SVG, PNG, XAML) and icon styles

Cons of MaterialDesign

• Larger file size due to the extensive icon set
• May require more time to find specific icons due to the vast collection

Code Comparison

MaterialDesign (SVG usage):

<svg viewBox="0 0 24 24">
  <path fill="currentColor" d="M12,4L10.5,5.5L15.09,10.09L10.5,14.68L12,16.18L18,10.18L12,4Z" />
</svg>

Open Iconic (SVG usage):

<svg viewBox="0 0 8 8">
  <path d="M1.5 0l-1.5 1.5 4 4 4-4-1.5-1.5-2.5 2.5-2.5-2.5z" transform="translate(0 1)" />
</svg>

Both repositories offer open-source icon sets, but MaterialDesign provides a more extensive collection with regular updates. Open Iconic, while smaller, offers a simpler and more focused set of icons. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, with MaterialDesign being suitable for larger projects needing diverse icons, and Open Iconic for simpler designs or smaller file sizes.

Pros of Tabler Icons

• Larger icon set with over 4,200 icons compared to Open Iconic's 223
• More modern and diverse icon styles, including outline and filled versions
• Regular updates and active maintenance

Cons of Tabler Icons

• Larger file size due to the extensive icon set
• May require more time to find specific icons due to the vast collection

Code Comparison

Open Iconic (SVG usage):

<img src="open-iconic/svg/account-login.svg" alt="account login">

Tabler Icons (SVG usage):

<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" class="icon icon-tabler icon-tabler-login" width="24" height="24" viewBox="0 0 24 24" stroke-width="2" stroke="currentColor" fill="none" stroke-linecap="round" stroke-linejoin="round">
  <path stroke="none" d="M0 0h24v24H0z" fill="none"/>
  <path d="M14 8v-2a2 2 0 0 0 -2 -2h-7a2 2 0 0 0 -2 2v12a2 2 0 0 0 2 2h7a2 2 0 0 0 2 -2v-2" />
  <path d="M20 12h-13l3 -3m0 6l-3 -3" />
</svg>

Both libraries offer SVG icons, but Tabler Icons provides more customization options directly in the SVG code, allowing for easier styling and manipulation.