npm vs bun vs deno | JavaScript Runtime Environments Comparison

Package	Downloads	Stars	Size	Issues	Publish	License

npm	6,681,522	8,812	11.7 MB	632	7 days ago	Artistic-2.0
bun	261,965	77,480	18 kB	4,689	6 days ago	MIT
deno	6,260	102,612	8.94 kB	2,187	15 hours ago	MIT

npm:
npm performance can vary depending on the tools and packages used. While it is not the fastest, its performance is adequate for most applications, especially with the use of modern package management techniques.
bun:
bun is designed for speed, particularly in bundling and transpiling tasks. It outperforms traditional tools like Webpack and Babel, making it a great choice for projects that require fast build times.
deno:
deno offers good performance, but its primary focus is on security and modern features rather than raw speed. It is efficient for running scripts and applications, especially those that leverage its TypeScript support.

npm:
npm security depends on the packages used and the practices of the developers. It does not have built-in security features, so developers must be vigilant about using trusted packages and managing vulnerabilities.
bun:
bun has a relatively secure architecture, but it does not enforce security measures like Deno. Developers are responsible for managing security best practices when using Bun.
deno:
deno is built with security in mind, featuring a permission system that restricts file, network, and environment access by default. This makes it a safer choice for running untrusted code.

npm:
npm supports TypeScript through third-party tools like TypeScript Compiler (tsc) and Babel. However, it does not provide native TypeScript support, and developers must set up their own configurations.
bun:
bun has experimental TypeScript support, but it is not as mature as Deno's. It can handle TypeScript files, but developers may encounter limitations and bugs.
deno:
deno provides first-class TypeScript support out of the box, with no configuration required. It is designed to work seamlessly with TypeScript, making it a great choice for TypeScript projects.

npm:
npm primarily uses the CommonJS module system, but it also supports ES modules. The dual support allows for compatibility with a vast array of existing JavaScript code.
bun:
bun uses the standard ES module system, which promotes modern JavaScript practices. It also supports CommonJS modules, making it compatible with a wide range of existing code.
deno:
deno uses the ES module system exclusively, with a URL-based import system that eliminates the need for package.json files. This encourages a more modern and modular approach to coding.

npm:
npm has the largest and most established ecosystem of packages and tools in the JavaScript world. Its long history and widespread use make it the go-to choice for most developers.
bun:
bun is a newer project with a rapidly growing community and ecosystem. It is gaining popularity for its performance and modern features, but it is still in the early stages compared to more established tools.
deno:
deno has a vibrant and active community, with increasing adoption and a growing ecosystem of libraries and tools. Its focus on modern features and security has attracted many developers.

npm:
npm is widely understood and used, but its complexity can be daunting for beginners. The vast amount of documentation and community resources helps mitigate this. Example: npm install package-name
bun:
bun is designed to be user-friendly, with a simple CLI and intuitive APIs. Its documentation is clear and helpful, making it easy for developers to get started. Example: bun run script.js
deno:
deno is also user-friendly, especially for TypeScript developers. Its security model and clear error messages help users understand and manage permissions. Example: deno run --allow-read script.ts

npm - a JavaScript package manager