Pros of vanilla-lazyload

• More actively maintained with frequent updates
• Supports native lazy loading for modern browsers
• Offers more customization options and features

Cons of vanilla-lazyload

• Slightly larger file size
• May have a steeper learning curve due to more configuration options

Code Comparison

lazyload:

var myLazyLoad = new LazyLoad({
    elements_selector: ".lazy"
});

vanilla-lazyload:

var lazyLoadInstance = new LazyLoad({
    elements_selector: ".lazy",
    use_native: true,
    threshold: 300
});

Both libraries use similar syntax for basic implementation, but vanilla-lazyload offers more configuration options out of the box, such as native lazy loading support and custom threshold settings.

vanilla-lazyload provides a more feature-rich and actively maintained solution, while lazyload offers a simpler, lightweight alternative. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, browser support needs, and desired customization level.

Pros of lazysizes

• More feature-rich, supporting responsive images, AJAX loading, and plugins
• Better performance with native lazy loading support and automatic unveiling
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of lazysizes

• Slightly larger file size due to additional features
• May be overkill for simple lazy loading needs
• Steeper learning curve for advanced features

Code Comparison

lazysizes:

<img data-src="image.jpg" class="lazyload" alt="Lazy loaded image">
<script src="lazysizes.min.js" async=""></script>

lazyload:

<img class="lazyload" data-src="image.jpg" alt="Lazy loaded image">
<script>
  new LazyLoad();
</script>

Both libraries use similar markup for lazy loading images, with the main difference being the initialization process. lazysizes automatically initializes itself, while lazyload requires manual instantiation.

lazysizes offers more advanced features and better performance, making it suitable for complex projects. However, lazyload is simpler and may be preferable for basic lazy loading needs. The choice between the two depends on the project's requirements and complexity.

Pros of lozad.js

• Smaller file size (1.9KB gzipped) compared to lazyload's larger footprint
• Uses Intersection Observer API for better performance and efficiency
• Supports lazy loading of background images and videos

Cons of lozad.js

• Less browser support due to reliance on Intersection Observer API
• Fewer customization options compared to lazyload's extensive configuration
• Limited documentation and examples compared to lazyload's comprehensive guides

Code Comparison

lozad.js:

const observer = lozad('.lozad', {
    rootMargin: '10px 0px',
    threshold: 0.1
});
observer.observe();

lazyload:

lazyload(document.querySelectorAll(".lazyload"), {
    root: null,
    rootMargin: "0px",
    threshold: 0
});

Both libraries offer simple implementation, but lozad.js uses a more modern approach with the Intersection Observer API. lazyload provides more options for customization and fallback methods for older browsers.

lozad.js is ideal for projects targeting modern browsers and prioritizing performance, while lazyload offers broader compatibility and more features at the cost of a larger file size.

Pros of yall.js

• Smaller file size (2.3KB gzipped) compared to lazyload's 3.5KB
• Supports native lazy loading with fallback for older browsers
• Includes IntersectionObserver polyfill for broader compatibility

Cons of yall.js

• Less customization options than lazyload
• Fewer stars and contributors on GitHub, potentially indicating less community support
• Limited documentation compared to lazyload's more comprehensive guides

Code Comparison

lazyload:

lazyload();

yall.js:

document.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded", yall);

Both libraries offer simple initialization, but yall.js requires explicit event listener setup.

Feature Comparison

• lazyload supports more media types (images, videos, iframes)
• yall.js focuses primarily on images and background images
• Both support responsive images and placeholders
• lazyload offers more advanced callback functions

Performance

Both libraries are lightweight and performant, but yall.js has a slight edge in file size and native lazy loading support, potentially offering better performance on modern browsers.

Community and Maintenance

lazyload has a larger user base and more frequent updates, while yall.js has fewer contributors but is still actively maintained.

Pros of blazy

• Smaller file size (2KB minified and gzipped) compared to lazyload's larger footprint
• Supports more browsers, including older versions of Internet Explorer
• Offers a CDN option for easy integration

Cons of blazy

• Less frequent updates and maintenance compared to lazyload
• Fewer configuration options and customization features
• Limited documentation and examples compared to lazyload's comprehensive guides

Code Comparison

blazy:

var bLazy = new Blazy({
    selector: 'img',
    offset: 100,
    success: function(element){
        console.log("Element loaded");
    }
});

lazyload:

var lazyLoadInstance = new LazyLoad({
    elements_selector: "img",
    threshold: 100,
    callback_loaded: function(element) {
        console.log("Element loaded");
    }
});

Both libraries offer similar basic functionality for lazy loading images, with slight differences in syntax and naming conventions. blazy uses offset while lazyload uses threshold for setting the distance at which images start loading. The callback function for successful loading is named differently in each library.

Overall, blazy is more lightweight and supports older browsers, while lazyload offers more features and better documentation. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements and browser support needs.