Skip to main content

Comparison guide

Babylonjs vs Three

Side-by-side NPM package comparison

Quick Verdict

Smallest Bundle

Three

177.7 KB gzipped

Most Popular

Three

9.0M weekly downloads

Best Maintained

Babylonjs

100/100 maintenance score

Highest Quality

Babylonjs

50/100 quality score

Overall Pick

Three

Best all-around based on popularity, size, maintenance & quality

babylonjs icon

babylonjs

Moderate

Version 9.5.0

0
77
Good

> We recommend using the [ES6 package `@babylonjs/core`](https://www.npmjs.com/package/@babylonjs/core) for new projects. This UMD package is provided for compatibility.

Weekly Downloads
22.7K
↑15%
Bundle (gzip)
14.3 MB
Updated
Vulns
0

Health Score Breakdown

Maintenance
100
Popularity
60
Quality
50
Security
100
Stability
70
three icon

three

Very Popular

Version 0.184.0

0
85
Excellent

JavaScript 3D library

Weekly Downloads
9.0M
↑20%
Bundle (gzip)
177.7 KB
Updated
Vulns
0

Health Score Breakdown

Maintenance
100
Popularity
100
Quality
50
Security
100
Stability
70

Choosing between Babylonjs and Three? 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

Three leads with 9.0M weekly downloads — roughly 397.3x more. Babylonjs has 22.7K weekly downloads. Higher download counts generally indicate broader community adoption and a larger ecosystem of tutorials, plugins, and support.

Bundle Size

Three has the smallest gzipped bundle at 177.7 KB. Babylonjs comes in at 14.3 MB. A smaller bundle size means faster page loads, which improves user experience and Core Web Vitals scores.

Health Score Comparison

Three has an overall health score of 85/100 (very good), with strong maintenance, security, popularity scores. Babylonjs has an overall health score of 77/100 (very good), with strong maintenance, security scores. Health scores are calculated from maintenance activity, code quality, security posture, popularity, and stability metrics.

When to Choose Each

Choose Babylonjs if you value actively maintained, strong security track record. Choose Three if you value large community support, actively maintained, strong security track record.

Our Verdict

Both Babylonjs and Three are solid choices for JavaScript development. Three 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 babylonjs better than three?
It depends on your needs. Babylonjs has a health score of 77/100 while Three scores 85/100. Three has more weekly downloads (9.0M), 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, babylonjs or three?
Three has the smaller gzipped bundle at 177.7 KB. A smaller bundle means faster load times for your users, which can positively impact SEO and user experience.
How many developers use babylonjs vs three?
Based on npm download statistics, Babylonjs has approximately 22.7K weekly downloads and Three has approximately 9.0M weekly downloads. These numbers reflect package installations, not unique developers, but they indicate relative adoption levels.
Which is better maintained, babylonjs or three?
Three currently has the higher overall health score at 85/100. Babylonjs has a maintenance score of 100/100 and Three scores 100/100 on maintenance.

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.