79
GoodA bcrypt library for NodeJS.
- Weekly Downloads
- 4.6M
↑6%
- Bundle (gzip)
- 2.3 KB
- Updated
- Vulns
- 0
Health Score Breakdown
Maintenance
80
Popularity
100
Quality
50
Security
100
Stability
70
Comparison guide
Bcrypt vs Bcryptjs
Side-by-side NPM package comparison
Quick Verdict
Smallest Bundle
Bcrypt
2.3 KB gzipped
Most Popular
Bcryptjs
8.8M weekly downloads
Best Maintained
Bcryptjs
100/100 maintenance score
Highest Quality
Bcrypt
50/100 quality score
Overall Pick
Bcrypt
Best all-around based on popularity, size, maintenance & quality
85
ExcellentOptimized bcrypt in plain JavaScript with zero dependencies, with TypeScript support. Compatible to 'bcrypt'.
- Weekly Downloads
- 8.8M
↑6%
- Bundle (gzip)
- 32.9 KB
- Updated
- Vulns
- 0
Health Score Breakdown
Maintenance
100
Popularity
100
Quality
50
Security
100
Stability
70
Choosing between Bcrypt and Bcryptjs? Here's a data-driven comparison based on real npm data — downloads, bundle size, health scores, and more — to help you decide which package fits your project best.
Downloads & Popularity
Bcryptjs leads with 8.8M weekly downloads — roughly 1.9x more. Bcrypt has 4.6M weekly downloads. Higher download counts generally indicate broader community adoption and a larger ecosystem of tutorials, plugins, and support.
Bundle Size
Bcrypt has the smallest gzipped bundle at 2.3 KB. Bcryptjs comes in at 32.9 KB. A smaller bundle size means faster page loads, which improves user experience and Core Web Vitals scores.
Health Score Comparison
Bcryptjs has an overall health score of 85/100 (very good), with strong maintenance, security, popularity scores. Bcrypt has an overall health score of 79/100 (very good), with strong maintenance, security, popularity scores. Health scores are calculated from maintenance activity, code quality, security posture, popularity, and stability metrics.
When to Choose Each
Choose Bcrypt if you value large community support, minimal bundle footprint, strong security track record. Choose Bcryptjs if you value large community support, actively maintained, strong security track record.
Our Verdict
Both Bcrypt and Bcryptjs are solid choices for JavaScript development. Bcryptjs has the edge in overall health score (85/100), while each package brings unique strengths to the table. Evaluate them based on your project's priorities — whether that's community size, bundle efficiency, or maintenance activity — and choose the one that aligns best with your requirements.
Frequently Asked Questions
- Is bcrypt better than bcryptjs?
- It depends on your needs. Bcrypt has a health score of 79/100 while Bcryptjs scores 85/100. Bcryptjs has more weekly downloads (8.8M), suggesting broader adoption. Consider your specific requirements — bundle size, community support, and feature set — to decide which is the better fit.
- Which has a smaller bundle size, bcrypt or bcryptjs?
- Bcrypt has the smaller gzipped bundle at 2.3 KB. A smaller bundle means faster load times for your users, which can positively impact SEO and user experience.
- How many developers use bcrypt vs bcryptjs?
- Based on npm download statistics, Bcrypt has approximately 4.6M weekly downloads and Bcryptjs has approximately 8.8M weekly downloads. These numbers reflect package installations, not unique developers, but they indicate relative adoption levels.
- Which is better maintained, bcrypt or bcryptjs?
- Bcryptjs currently has the higher overall health score at 85/100. Bcrypt has a maintenance score of 80/100 and Bcryptjs scores 100/100 on maintenance.
bcrypt vs bcryptjs: Bundle Size, Native Bindings & Deployment
bcrypt and bcryptjs solve the same problem — password hashing using the bcrypt algorithm — but they differ fundamentally in implementation. bcrypt is a native C++ binding that requires node-gyp and a C++ compiler during npm install. bcryptjs is a pure JavaScript implementation with zero native dependencies. This difference has massive implications for bundle size, deployment size, and cross-platform compatibility.
For serverless deployments (AWS Lambda, Vercel Functions, Cloudflare Workers), bcryptjs is often the only viable option. Native bindings add significant overhead to cold starts and deployment packages — the compiled .node binary plus its dependencies can add several megabytes to your deployment artifact. bcryptjs ships a single JavaScript file with no binary artifacts, making it dramatically smaller in deployment size and universally compatible across all JavaScript runtimes including edge environments.
The trade-off is performance: bcrypt's native C++ implementation is roughly 3-4x faster for hashing operations. For most web applications handling a few hundred logins per minute, this difference is imperceptible — a bcryptjs hash with 10 salt rounds takes about 100ms vs 30ms for native bcrypt. If you're running a high-volume authentication service processing thousands of hash operations per second, bcrypt's native speed advantage matters. For everyone else — especially teams prioritizing deployment simplicity, smaller bundle sizes, and cross-platform compatibility — bcryptjs delivers identical security with a fraction of the deployment complexity.
Related Comparisons
The 2026 JavaScript Stack Cheatsheet
One PDF: the best package for every category (ORMs, bundlers, auth, testing, state management). Used by 500+ devs. Free, updated monthly.