bootstrap vs bulma vs foundation-sites vs materialize-css: Which is Better CSS Frameworks?

Package	Downloads	Stars	Size	Issues	Publish	License

bootstrap	4,444,630	170,429	9.67 MB	631	8 months ago	MIT
bulma	172,492	49,257	6.15 MB	472	3 months ago	MIT
foundation-sites	79,855	29,652	24.7 MB	44	17 days ago	MIT
materialize-css	24,527	38,865	-	794	6 years ago	MIT

Design Principles

bootstrap: Bootstrap follows a mobile-first design approach, ensuring that applications are responsive and accessible on all devices. It provides a grid system and numerous components that adhere to a consistent design language, making it easy to create visually appealing layouts.
bulma: Bulma is built on Flexbox, which allows for more efficient and flexible layouts. Its design philosophy emphasizes simplicity and readability, making it easy to create clean and modern interfaces without excessive complexity.
foundation-sites: Foundation Sites focuses on a mobile-first approach and is designed for responsive web applications. It offers a robust grid system and customizable components, allowing developers to create tailored solutions for various screen sizes and devices.
materialize-css: Materialize CSS is based on Material Design principles, which emphasize depth, motion, and bold colors. It provides components that reflect these principles, ensuring a cohesive and modern user experience.

Customization

bootstrap: Bootstrap allows for extensive customization through its Sass variables and mixins, enabling developers to easily modify the framework's default styles to match their project's branding and design requirements.
bulma: Bulma is highly customizable with a straightforward syntax, allowing developers to override default styles using variables. Its modular structure means you can import only the components you need, reducing bloat.
foundation-sites: Foundation Sites offers a high degree of customization through Sass variables and a powerful grid system. Developers can create unique designs while maintaining a consistent structure throughout their applications.
materialize-css: Materialize CSS provides customization options through Sass variables, but it is more opinionated in terms of design. While it allows for some modifications, it encourages adherence to Material Design guidelines.

Component Variety

bootstrap: Bootstrap offers a vast array of pre-built components, including navigation bars, modals, alerts, and more. This extensive library allows developers to quickly implement common UI elements without needing to create them from scratch.
bulma: Bulma provides a solid set of components, but it is less extensive than Bootstrap. It focuses on essential UI elements, which can be beneficial for projects that require a minimalist approach.
foundation-sites: Foundation Sites boasts a rich set of components designed for complex applications, including advanced features like responsive tables and off-canvas navigation. This makes it suitable for projects that require more than just basic UI elements.
materialize-css: Materialize CSS includes a variety of components that follow Material Design guidelines, such as cards, buttons, and forms. While it provides a good selection, it may not be as extensive as Bootstrap.

Learning Curve

bootstrap: Bootstrap has a gentle learning curve, making it accessible for beginners. Its extensive documentation and examples help new developers quickly understand how to implement its components and utilities.
bulma: Bulma is straightforward to learn, especially for those familiar with CSS. Its clear syntax and modular approach make it easy to pick up and start using effectively.
foundation-sites: Foundation Sites has a steeper learning curve due to its advanced features and customization options. However, it offers comprehensive documentation that can help developers navigate its complexities.
materialize-css: Materialize CSS is relatively easy to learn, especially for those familiar with Material Design concepts. Its documentation provides clear examples, but understanding the underlying design principles may require some additional learning.

Community and Support

bootstrap: Bootstrap has a large and active community, which means extensive resources, tutorials, and third-party plugins are available. This support network can be invaluable for troubleshooting and enhancing projects.
bulma: Bulma has a growing community, but it is smaller compared to Bootstrap. While resources are available, they may not be as extensive, which could pose challenges for new users seeking help.
foundation-sites: Foundation Sites has a dedicated community, but it is less prominent than Bootstrap's. Documentation is thorough, but finding third-party resources may be more challenging.
materialize-css: Materialize CSS has a smaller community, which can limit the availability of resources and support. However, its adherence to Material Design principles means that many resources for Material Design can still be applicable.

bootstrap: Choose Bootstrap if you need a widely adopted framework with extensive documentation, a large community, and a comprehensive set of pre-built components. It's ideal for projects requiring a quick setup and a responsive design out of the box.

bulma: Choose Bulma if you prefer a modern, flexbox-based framework that emphasizes simplicity and minimalism. It's great for developers who want a clean design without the overhead of JavaScript components.

foundation-sites: Choose Foundation Sites if you need a highly customizable framework that offers advanced features and a mobile-first approach. It's suitable for complex projects where flexibility and customization are key.

materialize-css: Choose Materialize CSS if you want to implement Material Design principles in your web application. It provides a cohesive look and feel inspired by Google's design guidelines, making it perfect for projects aiming for a modern aesthetic.