Pros of Inputmask

• More flexible and feature-rich, supporting a wider range of input types and formats
• Better performance, especially for complex masks and large datasets
• Active development and maintenance, with regular updates and bug fixes

Cons of Inputmask

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex configuration options
• Larger file size, which may impact page load times for smaller projects
• May be overkill for simple masking needs

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});

Inputmask:

Inputmask("99/99/9999").mask("#date");
Inputmask("(999) 999-9999").mask("#phone");
Inputmask("currency", {
  prefix: "$ ",
  groupSeparator: ",",
  alias: "numeric",
  digits: 2,
  digitsOptional: false
}).mask("#money");

Both libraries offer similar basic functionality for common masking needs. However, Inputmask provides more advanced options and customization, as seen in the currency mask example. jQuery-Mask-Plugin offers a simpler syntax for basic use cases, making it easier to implement for straightforward masking requirements.

Pros of Cleave.js

• Lightweight and dependency-free, unlike jQuery-Mask-Plugin which requires jQuery
• Supports more input types, including credit cards, dates, and numerals
• Offers more customization options and formatting flexibility

Cons of Cleave.js

• Slightly steeper learning curve due to more configuration options
• May require more setup code for simple masking tasks
• Less widespread adoption compared to jQuery-Mask-Plugin

Code Comparison

jQuery-Mask-Plugin:

$('#phone').mask('(000) 000-0000');

Cleave.js:

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

Both libraries aim to simplify input formatting, but Cleave.js offers more granular control at the cost of slightly more verbose initialization. jQuery-Mask-Plugin provides a simpler API for basic masking needs, while Cleave.js excels in handling complex formatting scenarios and various input types.

Cleave.js is better suited for modern web applications that don't rely on jQuery, offering a more flexible and feature-rich solution. However, for projects already using jQuery or requiring simple masking, jQuery-Mask-Plugin remains a solid choice due to its ease of use and widespread adoption.

Pros of jquery.maskedinput

• More established and mature project with a longer history
• Supports a wider range of browsers, including older versions
• Provides more customization options for complex input patterns

Cons of jquery.maskedinput

• Less actively maintained, with fewer recent updates
• Larger file size, which may impact page load times
• More complex syntax for defining masks

Code Comparison

jQuery-Mask-Plugin:

$('#date').mask('00/00/0000');
$('#phone').mask('(000) 000-0000');
$('#ssn').mask('000-00-0000');

jquery.maskedinput:

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

Both plugins offer similar functionality for basic input masking. jQuery-Mask-Plugin uses '0' for digits, while jquery.maskedinput uses '9'. The syntax is slightly different, but the end result is comparable for simple masks.

jQuery-Mask-Plugin generally offers a more straightforward and intuitive API for basic use cases, while jquery.maskedinput provides more advanced features for complex scenarios. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, browser support needs, and desired customization options.

Pros of text-mask

• Framework-agnostic, works with vanilla JavaScript, React, Angular, and more
• Smaller bundle size and better performance due to not relying on jQuery
• More flexible and customizable masking options

Cons of text-mask

• Less mature and potentially less stable compared to jQuery-Mask-Plugin
• Smaller community and fewer resources available for support
• May require more setup and configuration for complex use cases

Code Comparison

jQuery-Mask-Plugin:

$('#phone').mask('(000) 000-0000');

text-mask:

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

const phoneMask = ['(', /[1-9]/, /\d/, /\d/, ')', ' ', /\d/, /\d/, /\d/, '-', /\d/, /\d/, /\d/, /\d/]

Summary

text-mask offers a more modern, flexible approach to input masking without jQuery dependency. It supports various frameworks and provides more customization options. However, jQuery-Mask-Plugin has a larger community and may be easier to implement for simple use cases. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, preferred framework, and desired level of customization.

Pros of generatedata

• More comprehensive data generation capabilities, allowing for creation of various data types and formats
• Offers a web-based interface for easy data generation without coding
• Supports multiple output formats, including SQL, CSV, XML, and JSON

Cons of generatedata

• Larger and more complex project, potentially harder to integrate into existing applications
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to a simple jQuery plugin
• May have a steeper learning curve for users unfamiliar with data generation concepts

Code Comparison

generatedata (PHP):

$generator = new \GDGenerator($this->dataTypes, $this->exportTypes, $this->countries);
$generator->generate($numRows, $data);
$output = $generator->generateExportData($exportType, $data);

jQuery-Mask-Plugin (JavaScript):

$('.date').mask('00/00/0000');
$('.time').mask('00:00:00');
$('.phone_with_ddd').mask('(00) 0000-0000');

While generatedata offers more extensive data generation capabilities, jQuery-Mask-Plugin provides a simpler solution for input masking in web forms. generatedata is better suited for creating large datasets or mock data, while jQuery-Mask-Plugin excels at formatting user input in real-time.

Pros of Vanilla-masker

• Lightweight and dependency-free, no need for jQuery
• Potentially better performance due to native JavaScript implementation
• More flexible, can be used with any JavaScript framework or vanilla JS

Cons of Vanilla-masker

• Less extensive documentation and examples compared to jQuery-Mask-Plugin
• Smaller community and fewer contributors, potentially slower development
• May require more manual setup and configuration

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});

Vanilla-masker:

VMasker(document.querySelector('#date')).maskPattern('99/99/9999');
VMasker(document.querySelector('#phone')).maskPattern('(999) 999-9999');
VMasker(document.querySelector('#money')).maskMoney();

Both libraries offer similar functionality for masking input fields, but Vanilla-masker uses native JavaScript methods while jQuery-Mask-Plugin relies on jQuery. Vanilla-masker's syntax is slightly more verbose but doesn't require jQuery as a dependency. The choice between the two may depend on project requirements, existing dependencies, and personal preference for vanilla JS or jQuery-based solutions.