Pros of postmark-templates

• More comprehensive set of templates, including both transactional and marketing emails
• Better organized repository structure with separate folders for different template types
• Includes responsive designs optimized for mobile devices

Cons of postmark-templates

• Less frequent updates compared to transactional-email-templates
• Fewer customization options and variables in some templates
• Limited documentation on how to integrate templates with different email services

Code Comparison

transactional-email-templates:

<table class="body-wrap" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; width: 100%; background-color: #f6f6f6; margin: 0;" bgcolor="#f6f6f6">
  <tr style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; margin: 0;">
    <td style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: top; margin: 0;" valign="top"></td>
    <td class="container" width="600" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: top; display: block !important; max-width: 600px !important; clear: both !important; margin: 0 auto;" valign="top">

postmark-templates:

<table class="email-wrapper" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" role="presentation">
  <tr>
    <td align="center">
      <table class="email-content" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" role="presentation">
        <tr>
          <td class="email-masthead">
            <a href="{{product_url}}" class="f-fallback email-masthead_name">

Pros of email-templates

• More modern and actively maintained repository
• Includes a wider variety of email templates, including both transactional and marketing emails
• Offers responsive designs optimized for mobile devices

Cons of email-templates

• Less established and potentially less tested in production environments
• May require more customization to fit specific use cases
• Smaller community and fewer resources compared to the more popular Mailgun repository

Code Comparison

transactional-email-templates:

<table class="body-wrap" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; width: 100%; background-color: #f6f6f6; margin: 0;" bgcolor="#f6f6f6">
  <tr style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; margin: 0;">
    <td style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: top; margin: 0;" valign="top"></td>
    <td class="container" width="600" style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: top; display: block !important; max-width: 600px !important; clear: both !important; margin: 0 auto;" valign="top">

email-templates:

<table role="presentation" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="body" style="border-collapse: separate; mso-table-lspace: 0pt; mso-table-rspace: 0pt; background-color: #f6f6f6; width: 100%;" width="100%" bgcolor="#f6f6f6">
  <tr>
    <td style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: top;" valign="top">&nbsp;</td>
    <td class="container" style="font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 14px; vertical-align: top; display: block; max-width: 580px; padding: 10px; width: 580px; margin: 0 auto;" width="580" valign="top">

Pros of responsive-html-email-template

• Simpler, more focused approach with a single, well-commented template
• Extensive inline documentation explaining each section of the template
• Regular updates and maintenance, with the last commit more recent than transactional-email-templates

Cons of responsive-html-email-template

• Limited to a single template design, less variety compared to transactional-email-templates
• Fewer customization options out-of-the-box
• Less comprehensive documentation outside of the template itself

Code Comparison

responsive-html-email-template:

<table role="presentation" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="body">
  <tr>
    <td>&nbsp;</td>
    <td class="container">
      <div class="content">
        <!-- START CENTERED WHITE CONTAINER -->
        <table role="presentation" class="main">

transactional-email-templates:

<body>
  <table class="body-wrap">
    <tr>
      <td></td>
      <td class="container" width="600">
        <div class="content">
          <table class="main" width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">

Both repositories use table-based layouts for email compatibility, but responsive-html-email-template uses more semantic HTML5 elements like role="presentation". transactional-email-templates provides more explicit width definitions in its table structure.

Pros of Cerberus

• More comprehensive set of responsive email templates
• Regularly updated and maintained
• Extensive documentation and usage guidelines

Cons of Cerberus

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex structure
• May be overkill for simple transactional emails

Code Comparison

Cerberus:

<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" border="0" width="100%">
  <tr>
    <td style="padding: 20px; font-family: sans-serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px; color: #555555;">
      <!-- Content goes here -->
    </td>
  </tr>
</table>

transactional-email-templates:

<tr>
  <td class="content-block">
    <!-- Content goes here -->
  </td>
</tr>

Cerberus offers more detailed inline styling and structure, while transactional-email-templates uses a simpler approach with CSS classes. Cerberus provides greater control over appearance across various email clients, but transactional-email-templates may be easier to customize for developers familiar with traditional web development practices.

Both repositories offer valuable resources for creating responsive email templates, with Cerberus being more comprehensive and transactional-email-templates focusing on simplicity for transactional emails. The choice between them depends on the specific needs of the project and the developer's familiarity with email development best practices.

Pros of MJML

• More comprehensive and flexible framework for creating responsive emails
• Extensive component library for complex email layouts
• Active community and regular updates

Cons of MJML

• Steeper learning curve due to its custom syntax
• Requires compilation step to generate HTML

Code Comparison

MJML:

<mjml>
  <mj-body>
    <mj-section>
      <mj-column>
        <mj-text>Hello World</mj-text>
      </mj-column>
    </mj-section>
  </mj-body>
</mjml>

transactional-email-templates:

<table>
  <tr>
    <td>
      <p>Hello World</p>
    </td>
  </tr>
</table>

Key Differences

• MJML uses a custom XML-like syntax, while transactional-email-templates uses standard HTML
• MJML provides a more abstracted approach, hiding complex table structures
• transactional-email-templates offers ready-to-use templates, while MJML is a framework for building custom templates

Use Cases

• MJML: Ideal for teams building complex, custom email templates with a consistent design system
• transactional-email-templates: Better for quick implementation of common transactional email layouts

Community and Support

• MJML has a larger community and more third-party resources
• transactional-email-templates is maintained by Mailgun, providing reliability for basic transactional email needs