Choosing a State Management Library for React in 2026

Zustand has 14.2 million weekly downloads. Redux Toolkit has 9.8 million. Two years ago, those numbers were reversed.

The shift is unmistakable: React developers are moving toward lighter, simpler state management. But "lighter" doesn't always mean "better for your project" — and choosing the wrong library creates pain that compounds over months.

We compared every major option using real npm data from PkgPulse. Here's how to make the right call.

The Landscape at a Glance

| Library | Weekly Downloads | Bundle Size (gzip) | API Style | Learning Curve | |---------|-----------------|--------------------|-----------| --------------| | Zustand | 14.2M | ~1.1KB | Hook-based | Low | | Redux Toolkit | 9.8M | ~11KB | Slices + dispatch | Medium | | Jotai | 3.4M | ~3.6KB | Atomic | Low-Medium | | React Context | Built-in | 0KB | Provider + hooks | Low | | Recoil | ~500K (declining) | ~22KB | Atomic | Medium |

See live download trends and health scores at pkgpulse.com/compare/redux-vs-zustand

The headline story: Zustand is the most downloaded React state management library in 2026. It wasn't two years ago. Understanding why helps you decide if it's right for your project.

Zustand: The New Default

Zustand's rise is simple to explain — it eliminated the boilerplate that made Redux feel heavy, without sacrificing the patterns that made Redux useful.

A complete Zustand store:

import { create } from 'zustand'

interface CounterStore {
  count: number
  increment: () => void
  decrement: () => void
}

const useCounter = create<CounterStore>((set) => ({
  count: 0,
  increment: () => set((state) => ({ count: state.count + 1 })),
  decrement: () => set((state) => ({ count: state.count - 1 })),
}))

// In a component:
function Counter() {
  const count = useCounter((state) => state.count)
  const increment = useCounter((state) => state.increment)
  return <button onClick={increment}>{count}</button>
}

That's the whole API. No Provider wrapping your app. No reducers. No action types. No middleware setup. One function call, one hook.

Why Teams Choose Zustand

• 1.1KB gzipped — your users won't notice it exists
• No Provider — no component tree restructuring when you add state
• Selector-based rendering — components only re-render when their selected slice changes
• TypeScript-first — strong inference without boilerplate type definitions
• Middleware support — persist, devtools, immer plugins when you need them
• Works outside React — access stores from vanilla JS, tests, or server-side code

Where Zustand Falls Short

Zustand's simplicity is its strength, but it means less structure for large teams:

• No enforced patterns — unlike Redux, there's no prescribed way to organize stores, actions, or side effects
• No time-travel debugging — the devtools middleware helps, but it's not Redux DevTools
• Complex derived state — computing values from multiple stores requires manual wiring
• No built-in async patterns — you handle data fetching yourself (or pair with React Query)

For a team of 3-5 developers on a mid-size app, these trade-offs are worth it. For a 50-person engineering org, the lack of enforced patterns becomes a real problem.

Compare health scores and downloads: pkgpulse.com/compare/redux-vs-zustand

Redux Toolkit: Still the Enterprise Choice

Redux Toolkit simplified Redux so dramatically that "old Redux" and "Redux Toolkit" are practically different libraries. If your mental model of Redux involves switch statements and UPPERCASE_ACTION_TYPES, that world is gone.

import { createSlice, configureStore } from '@reduxjs/toolkit'

const counterSlice = createSlice({
  name: 'counter',
  initialState: { count: 0 },
  reducers: {
    increment: (state) => { state.count += 1 },
    decrement: (state) => { state.count -= 1 },
  },
})

const store = configureStore({
  reducer: { counter: counterSlice.reducer },
})

More code than Zustand — but that code buys you something specific.

Why Teams Choose Redux Toolkit

• Battle-tested at scale — Facebook, Airbnb, Discord, Twitch run on Redux
• Enforced patterns — slices, selectors, and middleware create consistency across large teams
• Time-travel debugging — Redux DevTools is still the gold standard for state debugging
• RTK Query — built-in data fetching and caching, comparable to React Query
• Middleware pipeline — intercept and transform actions for logging, analytics, auth flows
• Massive ecosystem — sagas, thunks, persist, and hundreds of community packages

Where Redux Toolkit Falls Short

• 11KB gzipped — 10x heavier than Zustand (though small in absolute terms)
• Boilerplate — even with RTK, there's more setup than Zustand or Jotai
• Learning curve — the slice/dispatch/selector mental model takes time to internalize
• Provider required — wraps your component tree, adds architectural coupling

See the full comparison: pkgpulse.com/compare/mobx-vs-redux

Jotai: The Atomic Alternative

Jotai takes a fundamentally different approach: instead of stores, you create individual atoms of state. Each atom is independent, composable, and triggers re-renders only in components that read it.

import { atom, useAtom } from 'jotai'

const countAtom = atom(0)
const doubledAtom = atom((get) => get(countAtom) * 2)

function Counter() {
  const [count, setCount] = useAtom(countAtom)
  return <button onClick={() => setCount(c => c + 1)}>{count}</button>
}

function Display() {
  const [doubled] = useAtom(doubledAtom)
  return <p>Doubled: {doubled}</p>
}

doubledAtom automatically recomputes when countAtom changes. No selectors, no subscriptions, no manual dependency tracking.

Why Teams Choose Jotai

• 3.6KB gzipped — lightweight, though not as tiny as Zustand
• Fine-grained reactivity — atoms trigger re-renders only where they're consumed
• Derived state is first-class — computed atoms are trivial to create
• No Provider required (optional Provider for scope isolation)
• Excellent for forms and UI state — many independent pieces of state that rarely interact

Where Jotai Falls Short

• Less intuitive for centralized state — if your app has one big state object, atoms feel fragmented
• Smaller ecosystem than Redux or Zustand
• Learning curve for the atom mental model — particularly async atoms and atom families
• Less community content — fewer tutorials, patterns, and Stack Overflow answers

Compare: pkgpulse.com/compare/jotai-vs-zustand

React Context: When You Don't Need a Library

Before reaching for any library, consider whether React Context is enough. It's built-in, zero-bundle-cost, and handles many common cases:

const ThemeContext = createContext<'light' | 'dark'>('light')

function App() {
  const [theme, setTheme] = useState<'light' | 'dark'>('light')
  return (
    <ThemeContext.Provider value={theme}>
      <ThemeToggle onToggle={() => setTheme(t => t === 'light' ? 'dark' : 'light')} />
      <Content />
    </ThemeContext.Provider>
  )
}

Context works well for: themes, locale, auth state, and other values that change infrequently and are needed across many components.

Context breaks down when: state changes frequently (every Context update re-renders all consumers), you need selector-based optimization, or your state logic is complex enough to need middleware.

The Decision Framework

| Scenario | Recommendation | |----------|---------------| | Simple app, infrequent state changes | React Context | | Small-medium app, straightforward state | Zustand | | Large team, strict patterns needed | Redux Toolkit | | Many independent state pieces, derived values | Jotai | | Data fetching + caching needed | RTK Query or React Query (not state management) |

Bundle Size Comparison

| Library | Gzipped Size | |---------|-------------| | React Context | 0KB (built-in) | | Zustand | ~1.1KB | | Jotai | ~3.6KB | | Redux Toolkit | ~11KB | | Recoil | ~22KB |

For context: a single hero image is typically 50-200KB. These libraries are all small in the grand scheme of a production bundle. Pick the right tool for the job, not the smallest one.

Performance: Re-render Behavior

The practical performance differences come down to how each library handles re-renders:

• React Context — re-renders all consumers on any change. No selector support.
• Zustand — selector-based subscriptions. Only re-renders when the selected slice changes. Efficient by default.
• Redux Toolkit — useSelector with reselect for memoized derived state. Efficient, but requires explicit selectors.
• Jotai — atomic subscriptions. Each atom re-renders only its consumers. The most granular by default.

For most apps with moderate state complexity, the difference is negligible. For apps with frequent state updates and many consuming components (dashboards, real-time data, collaborative editing), Jotai's atomic model or Zustand's selectors provide measurable advantages over Context.

The Verdict

Zustand is the pragmatic default for most React apps in 2026. It's tiny, simple, and gets out of your way.

Redux Toolkit is the right call for large teams that need enforced patterns, time-travel debugging, and a battle-tested ecosystem. If you're building enterprise software with 10+ developers, the structure pays for itself.

Jotai is the best fit for applications with lots of independent, composable state — particularly when derived values are central to your data model.

React Context is enough when your global state is limited to a handful of values that change infrequently.

The trend is clear: the React ecosystem is moving toward simpler, lighter state management. But "simpler" means different things at different scales.

Compare Redux vs Zustand on PkgPulse →

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the best React state management library in 2026?

Zustand is the most popular choice in 2026, with 14.2M weekly downloads and a 1.1KB footprint. It's the best default for small-to-medium apps. Redux Toolkit remains the standard for enterprise-scale projects. Compare them at pkgpulse.com/compare/redux-vs-zustand.

Should I still use Redux in 2026?

Yes, if your project benefits from enforced patterns, time-travel debugging, or RTK Query for data fetching. Redux Toolkit modernized the developer experience significantly. For smaller apps, Zustand provides a simpler alternative with less overhead.

Is Zustand better than Redux?

For most small-to-medium apps, Zustand offers a simpler API, smaller bundle (1.1KB vs 11KB), and less boilerplate. Redux Toolkit is better for large teams that need strict state management patterns and advanced debugging tools. See the full data on PkgPulse.

---

Explore more comparisons: Redux vs Zustand, Jotai vs Zustand, MobX vs Redux on PkgPulse.