Pros of mojs

• More comprehensive animation toolkit with a wider range of features
• Supports custom shapes and swirl effects for unique animations
• Provides a visual timeline editor for easier animation sequencing

Cons of mojs

• Steeper learning curve due to its more complex API
• Larger file size, which may impact page load times
• Less frequent updates and maintenance compared to anime

Code Comparison

mojs:

const burst = new mojs.Burst({
  radius:   { 0: 100 },
  count:    5,
  children: {
    shape:      'circle',
    fill:       { 'cyan' : 'yellow' },
    duration:   2000
  }
});

anime:

anime({
  targets: '.element',
  translateX: 250,
  rotate: '1turn',
  backgroundColor: '#FFF',
  duration: 800,
  easing: 'easeInOutQuad'
});

Both mojs and anime are powerful JavaScript animation libraries, but they cater to different needs. mojs offers a more extensive set of features and tools for creating complex animations, including custom shapes and a visual editor. However, this comes at the cost of a steeper learning curve and larger file size. anime, on the other hand, provides a simpler API that's easier to pick up and use quickly, making it more suitable for simpler animations and beginners. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and your familiarity with animation concepts.

Pros of GSAP

• More comprehensive feature set, including advanced timeline control and complex animations
• Better performance, especially for large-scale animations
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for specialized effects

Cons of GSAP

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive API
• Larger file size, which may impact load times for smaller projects
• Commercial license required for some use cases

Code Comparison

GSAP:

gsap.to(".box", {duration: 2, x: 100, y: 50, rotation: 360});

Anime:

anime({
  targets: '.box',
  translateX: 100,
  translateY: 50,
  rotate: 360,
  duration: 2000
});

Both libraries offer similar basic functionality, but GSAP's syntax is often more concise. GSAP uses a single object for properties, while Anime separates transform properties. GSAP measures duration in seconds, whereas Anime uses milliseconds.

GSAP generally provides more granular control over animations and offers a wider range of features, making it suitable for complex projects. Anime, on the other hand, has a simpler API and is often preferred for smaller projects or by developers who prioritize ease of use.

Pros of three.js

• More comprehensive 3D graphics library, offering a wide range of features for creating complex 3D scenes and animations
• Larger community and ecosystem, with extensive documentation and numerous examples
• Supports WebGL rendering, providing high-performance 3D graphics in web browsers

Cons of three.js

• Steeper learning curve due to its complexity and extensive API
• Larger file size, which may impact load times for web applications
• Overkill for simple 2D animations or basic UI transitions

Code Comparison

three.js (3D scene creation):

const scene = new THREE.Scene();
const camera = new THREE.PerspectiveCamera(75, window.innerWidth / window.innerHeight, 0.1, 1000);
const renderer = new THREE.WebGLRenderer();
renderer.setSize(window.innerWidth, window.innerHeight);
document.body.appendChild(renderer.domElement);

anime (2D animation):

anime({
  targets: '.element',
  translateX: 250,
  rotate: '1turn',
  duration: 800,
  easing: 'easeInOutQuad'
});

While three.js is focused on creating and rendering 3D scenes, anime is designed for simpler 2D animations and transitions. three.js offers more power and flexibility for complex 3D graphics, but anime provides a more straightforward API for basic animations, making it easier to use for simple projects.

Pros of tween.js

• Lightweight and focused solely on tweening, making it more efficient for simple animations
• Longer development history and potentially more stable codebase
• Supports a wider range of easing functions out of the box

Cons of tween.js

• Less feature-rich compared to anime, lacking advanced animation capabilities
• Smaller community and fewer updates in recent years
• Requires more manual setup for complex animations

Code Comparison

anime:

anime({
  targets: '.element',
  translateX: 250,
  rotate: '1turn',
  duration: 800,
  easing: 'easeInOutQuad'
});

tween.js:

new TWEEN.Tween({ x: 0, rotation: 0 })
  .to({ x: 250, rotation: Math.PI * 2 }, 800)
  .easing(TWEEN.Easing.Quadratic.InOut)
  .onUpdate(function(obj) {
    element.style.transform = `translateX(${obj.x}px) rotate(${obj.rotation}rad)`;
  })
  .start();

The code comparison shows that anime provides a more concise and declarative API, while tween.js requires more manual setup and update handling. anime automatically handles DOM updates, whereas tween.js needs explicit onUpdate callbacks to modify element properties.

Pros of Vivus

• Specialized in SVG animation, particularly for drawing/tracing effects
• Lightweight and focused on a specific use case
• Offers multiple animation styles for SVG drawing

Cons of Vivus

• Limited to SVG animations only
• Fewer animation options compared to Anime's versatility
• Less active development and smaller community

Code Comparison

Vivus example:

new Vivus('my-svg', {duration: 200, type: 'sync'}, myCallback);

Anime example:

anime({
  targets: '.my-element',
  translateX: 250,
  rotate: '1turn',
  duration: 800
});

Summary

Vivus is a specialized library for SVG drawing animations, while Anime is a more comprehensive animation library. Vivus excels in its specific use case but is limited in scope. Anime offers broader animation capabilities across various properties and elements, making it more versatile for general web animations. The choice between the two depends on the project's specific requirements and the desired animation effects.

Pros of Lottie-web

• Supports complex, high-quality animations exported from Adobe After Effects
• Offers a wide range of animation capabilities, including shape morphing and expressions
• Provides better performance for intricate animations due to its vector-based approach

Cons of Lottie-web

• Larger file size and more complex implementation compared to Anime
• Steeper learning curve, especially for designers unfamiliar with After Effects
• Limited runtime manipulation of animations without additional libraries

Code Comparison

Lottie-web:

lottie.loadAnimation({
  container: document.getElementById('lottie-container'),
  renderer: 'svg',
  loop: true,
  autoplay: true,
  path: 'animation.json'
});

Anime:

anime({
  targets: '.element',
  translateX: 250,
  rotate: '1turn',
  duration: 800,
  easing: 'easeInOutQuad'
});

Both libraries offer powerful animation capabilities, but they cater to different use cases. Lottie-web excels in reproducing complex After Effects animations, while Anime provides a more lightweight and flexible JavaScript-based approach for simpler animations and transitions.