Pros of Inputmask

• More extensive documentation and examples
• Wider browser compatibility, including older versions
• Larger community and more frequent updates

Cons of Inputmask

• Slightly larger file size
• More complex setup for some use cases
• Less flexible for custom mask patterns

Code Comparison

Inputmask:

Inputmask("99/99/9999").mask(document.getElementById("date"));

imaskjs:

IMask(document.getElementById('date'), {
  mask: Date,
  min: new Date(1900, 0, 1),
  max: new Date(2020, 0, 1)
});

Both libraries offer similar functionality for basic input masking, but imaskjs provides more flexibility for complex date masking out of the box. Inputmask requires additional configuration for similar date range functionality.

Inputmask is generally easier to set up for simple use cases, while imaskjs offers more advanced features with a slightly steeper learning curve. Inputmask has been around longer and has a larger user base, which can be beneficial for finding solutions to common issues. However, imaskjs is more lightweight and may be preferred for projects where file size is a concern.

Ultimately, the choice between these libraries depends on specific project requirements, desired features, and performance considerations.

Pros of Cleave.js

• Simpler API and easier to set up for basic input masking needs
• Lightweight and focused specifically on input formatting
• Better documentation and examples for quick implementation

Cons of Cleave.js

• Less flexible for complex masking scenarios
• Limited support for dynamic masks and custom validation
• Fewer options for handling different input types (e.g., number, date)

Code Comparison

Cleave.js:

new Cleave('.input-phone', {
    phone: true,
    phoneRegionCode: 'US'
});

IMask:

IMask(document.querySelector('.input-phone'), {
    mask: '+{1}(000)000-0000'
});

Both libraries offer straightforward ways to implement input masking, but IMask provides more granular control over the mask pattern. Cleave.js uses predefined formats, while IMask allows for custom mask definitions.

IMask offers more advanced features like dynamic masking, custom validation, and support for various input types. However, this comes at the cost of a slightly steeper learning curve and more complex setup for advanced use cases.

Cleave.js shines in its simplicity and ease of use for common input formatting scenarios, making it a good choice for projects with straightforward masking requirements. IMask is better suited for applications that need more flexibility and control over input masking and validation.

Pros of text-mask

• More mature project with a larger community and better documentation
• Supports multiple frameworks out of the box (React, Angular, Vue, etc.)
• Simpler API for basic use cases

Cons of text-mask

• Less flexible for complex masking scenarios
• Not actively maintained (last commit was in 2018)
• Limited options for customization compared to imaskjs

Code Comparison

text-mask:

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

const numberMask = createNumberMask({
  prefix: '$',
  allowDecimal: true
})

<MaskedInput
  mask={numberMask}
  guide={false}
  placeholderChar={'\u2000'}
  onChange={this.onChange}
/>

imaskjs:

import IMask from 'imask';

const maskOptions = {
  mask: Number,
  scale: 2,
  signed: false,
  thousandsSeparator: ',',
  padFractionalZeros: false,
  normalizeZeros: true,
  radix: '.',
  mapToRadix: ['.']
};

const mask = IMask(element, maskOptions);

Both libraries offer input masking functionality, but imaskjs provides more granular control over the masking process. text-mask is easier to set up for simple cases but may be limited for complex scenarios. imaskjs is actively maintained and offers more flexibility, while text-mask has better framework integration out of the box.

Pros of jQuery-Mask-Plugin

• Lightweight and easy to use, especially for developers familiar with jQuery
• Extensive documentation and examples available
• Wide browser compatibility, including older versions

Cons of jQuery-Mask-Plugin

• Dependency on jQuery, which may not be ideal for modern web applications
• Limited flexibility for complex masking scenarios
• Less active development and fewer recent updates

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});

imaskjs:

IMask(document.getElementById('date'), {
  mask: Date,
  min: new Date(1990, 0, 1),
  max: new Date(2020, 0, 1)
});
IMask(document.getElementById('phone'), {
  mask: '+{7}(000)000-00-00'
});

imaskjs offers more advanced masking options and doesn't rely on jQuery. It provides a more modern approach to input masking with support for various input types and complex patterns. However, it may have a steeper learning curve compared to jQuery-Mask-Plugin.

Both libraries serve their purpose well, but imaskjs is more suitable for modern web development practices and complex masking requirements, while jQuery-Mask-Plugin remains a solid choice for simpler use cases in jQuery-based projects.

Pros of jquery.maskedinput

• Lightweight and simple to use, especially for jQuery-based projects
• Well-established with a long history of development and community support
• Extensive documentation and examples available

Cons of jquery.maskedinput

• Dependency on jQuery, which may not be ideal for modern web applications
• Less flexible for complex input masking scenarios
• Limited support for non-input elements and dynamic mask changes

Code Comparison

jquery.maskedinput:

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

imaskjs:

IMask(document.getElementById('phone'), {
  mask: '(000) 000-0000'
});
IMask(document.getElementById('date'), {
  mask: Date
});

imaskjs offers more flexibility and advanced features, such as custom mask patterns and dynamic masks. It also works with vanilla JavaScript, making it more versatile for modern web development. However, jquery.maskedinput may be easier to implement for developers already using jQuery and requiring simple input masking functionality.