Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing Chart.js vs Pixi.js, the Slant community recommends Chart.js for most people. In the question“What are the best JavaScript libraries for creating visualisations of data as charts/graphs?” Chart.js is ranked 2nd while Pixi.js is ranked 14th. The most important reason people chose Chart.js is:
The library contains a set of 6 charts and is 11Kb gzipped, this makes its loading time and page impact low.
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Lightweight and fast
The library contains a set of 6 charts and is 11Kb gzipped, this makes its loading time and page impact low.
Pro Responsive charts
The charts are fully responsive, meaning they resize based on the viewport width.
Pro Clear documentation
The chart.js documentation is well organized and provides detailed information on using each feature.
Pro Plugin support
Many plugins available via NPM and you can easily write your own
Pro Supports WebGL w/ canvas fallback
Pixi is a WebGL renderer, but can fall back to canvas if WebGL is not supported or turned off.
Pro Will be familiar to ActionScript developers
Pixi.js uses a code structure that's very similar to ActionScript.
Cons
Con Limited features
Chart.js currently offers only 6 graph types, and lacks the flexibility offered by other options. For example, controlling the display of tooltips is fairly limited.
Con Canvas based
Canvas it bitmap based and shares the same issues as non-vector formats.
Con Not a complete solution
Pixi only provides the renderer.
