Comparison
Here's a comparison of Tailwind Variants with other libraries that provide similar functionality.
This comparison strives to be as accurate and unbiased as possible. If you use any of these libraries and feel this information could be improved, feel free to suggest changes using the "Edit this page" link at the right sidebar of this page.
| Feature | Tailwind Variants | CVA | Windstitch | Classnames |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variants API | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ |
| Framework agnostic | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ |
| Responsive Variants | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| Split components (slots) | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| Slots with responsive variants | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| Compound slots | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| Overrides components | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ |
| Components composition (extend) | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ |
| Great DX (autocomplete types) | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ |
| Needs TailwindCSS to work | ✅ | ❌ | ✅ | ❌ |
| Conflicts resolution | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
Note: ✅ = supported, ❌ = not supported
Why Tailwind Variants?
A common question that we get is "Why you created Tailwind Variants? Why not use CVA?", and the fact is that we tried to use CVA (opens in a new tab) in NextUI (opens in a new tab) to migrate from Stitches to TailwindCSS, but we found it challenging to create a design system solely using CVA. Then we realized that some of the features we needed were not planned to be implemented in CVA as the creator has stated here (opens in a new tab), so we decided to create Tailwind Variants to fill the gap. Our goal is not to compete with CVA, but to provide an alternative that meets our needs to migrate NextUI (opens in a new tab) to TailwindCSS as smoothly as possible. That being said, big shoutout to Joe Bell (opens in a new tab) and contributors (opens in a new tab) you guys rock! 🤘 - we recommend to use CVA if don't need any of the Tailwind Variants features listed above.