When comparing Cycle.js vs Inferno, the Slant community recommends Cycle.js for most people. In the question“What are the best React.js alternatives?” Cycle.js is ranked 5th while Inferno is ranked 9th.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Not opinionated
Pro All behaviour is declared in a pure main function
Pro Functional approach
Pro Virtual DOM rendering
Pro Conceptually fascinating
A perpetual motion machine that works.
Pro Supports JSX, React Native…
Pro Server-side rendering
Pro Modular
Use it however you want in a framework of your own custom design. When things change in the industry, swap things out instead of being locked in by someone else's design.
Pro Pretty light-weight
Inferno weighs in at 9kb gzipped, which is light-weight.
Pro Fast performance
Inferno is one of the fastest UI libraries around and widely considered the fastest.
Pro React compatability
Using the Inferno compatibility package ("inferno-compat"), Inferno can support the vast majority of React codebases.
Cons
Con Not for people with rapidly approaching deadlines and no familiarity with Cycle.js
Con Supports jsx
Con Much smaller ecosystem
Con Some React components may not work with Inferno
Inferno and React have different public and private APIs. If 3rd party components use a private API then it's almost certainly going to break when you use it with Inferno.
Once React Fiber is implemented, even libraries that are currently working will break and will not be supported by Inferno.
Con Not very popular
Which can hinder one's opinion of its future, but the future of all "frameworks" is to break things into smaller pieces, so inferno very well might get used by the big names in the future.