Awilix vs Inversify vs Tsyringe: Choosing the Right DI Container for TypeScript

All three libraries—awilix, inversify, and tsyringe—solve the same core problem: managing dependencies in a way that promotes modularity, testability, and maintainability. But they differ significantly in philosophy, API design, and runtime behavior. Let’s break down how they compare in real-world usage.

🧩 Registration Style: Explicit Functions vs Decorators

awilix uses plain functions and objects for registration—no decorators required. This makes it compatible with environments where decorator metadata isn’t emitted or desired.

// awilix: functional registration
import { createContainer, asClass, asFunction } from 'awilix';

const container = createContainer();
container.register({
  logger: asFunction(() => console.log),
  userService: asClass(UserService).singleton()
});

inversify leans heavily on decorators and symbol-based identifiers. You annotate classes and constructor parameters, then bind them in a kernel.

// inversify: decorator-based
import { injectable, inject, Container } from 'inversify';

const TYPES = { Logger: Symbol('Logger') };

@injectable()
class UserService {
  constructor(@inject(TYPES.Logger) private logger: any) {}
}

const container = new Container();
container.bind(TYPES.Logger).toConstantValue(console.log);
container.bind(UserService).toSelf();

tsyringe also uses decorators but simplifies binding through auto-registration and string-based tokens.

// tsyringe: minimal decorators
import { injectable, container } from 'tsyringe';

@injectable()
class UserService {
  constructor(private logger: any) {}
}

container.register('Logger', { useValue: console.log });
// Auto-resolves UserService when requested

🔁 Lifetime Management: Scopes, Singletons, and Transients

awilix provides clear, composable lifetime options: transient() (new instance every time), singleton() (one instance per container), and scoped() (one instance per scope, useful for request-level isolation in servers).

// awilix scoped example
const scope = container.createScope();
scope.register({
  requestContext: asValue({ id: 'req-123' })
});
// All resolved services in this scope share the same context

inversify supports singleton and transient modes via .inSingletonScope() or .inTransientScope(), but scoping requires manual handling or third-party helpers. True request-scoped lifetimes aren’t built-in.

// inversify singleton
container.bind<UserService>(UserService).toSelf().inSingletonScope();

tsyringe defaults to singleton behavior unless explicitly overridden with @injectable({ singleton: false }). It lacks native scoped lifetime support—no equivalent to request-scoped containers out of the box.

// tsyringe non-singleton
@injectable({ singleton: false })
class TransientService {}

⚙️ TypeScript Integration: Metadata and Type Safety

awilix doesn’t rely on emitDecoratorMetadata. Instead, it uses parameter name introspection (in non-minified builds) or explicit resolver maps. This avoids TypeScript compiler flags but can break under aggressive minification unless you provide explicit injection tokens.

// awilix with explicit injection
container.register({
  userService: asClass(UserService).inject(() => ({
    logger: container.resolve('logger')
  }))
});

inversify requires emitDecoratorMetadata: true and often custom symbols to maintain type safety. While powerful, this adds cognitive overhead and tight coupling between binding keys and class definitions.

tsyringe also depends on emitDecoratorMetadata: true, but uses constructor parameter types directly as injection tokens when possible. Simpler than Inversify, but still fragile if types are erased or ambiguous.

📦 Bundle Impact and Runtime Overhead

awilix has the smallest conceptual footprint. No decorators mean less runtime metadata parsing. Its functional style translates to leaner bundles, especially when tree-shaken.

inversify carries more runtime logic for its binding system, middleware pipeline, and reflection utilities. This can add noticeable weight in frontend bundles.

tsyringe is lightweight and dependency-free, but decorator metadata still bloats output slightly. Still, it’s often smaller than Inversify in practice.

🌐 Environment Compatibility

All three work in browsers and Node.js, but awilix shines in constrained environments (e.g., edge runtimes, Web Workers) because it avoids decorators and reflection. inversify and tsyringe may struggle if Reflect APIs aren’t polyfilled or if minification strips parameter names.

🤝 Similarities: Shared Goals and Patterns

Despite their differences, all three libraries embrace key DI principles:

1. 🔄 Inversion of Control

Each lets you delegate object creation to a container, so your classes don’t instantiate their own dependencies.

// Common pattern across all three
class OrderService {
  constructor(private paymentGateway: PaymentGateway) {}
  // No `new PaymentGateway()` inside
}

2. 🧪 Testability

You can easily swap real dependencies for mocks during testing.

// Example test setup (conceptually similar in all)
container.register({
  paymentGateway: asValue(mockGateway)
});

3. 🧱 Modular Architecture

All encourage separation of concerns by wiring components externally rather than hard-coding relationships.

4. ✅ TypeScript Support

Each provides strong typing for registrations and resolutions when configured properly.

🆚 Summary: Key Differences

💡 The Bottom Line

• Use awilix when you value simplicity, explicit control, and compatibility with minified or metadata-free builds. It’s the most “JavaScript-native” of the three.

• Use inversify when you need advanced DI features like conditional bindings or are building a large system where strict architectural boundaries justify the complexity.

• Use tsyringe when you want a quick, decorator-based DI solution with minimal setup and you’re okay with singleton-by-default behavior.

None of these libraries are deprecated — all are actively maintained and production-ready. Your choice should hinge on your team’s tolerance for decorators, need for scoped lifetimes, and deployment constraints.