When comparing Webpack vs Bower, the Slant community recommends Webpack for most people. In the question“What are the best open source front-end package managers?” Webpack is ranked 2nd while Bower is ranked 5th. The most important reason people chose Webpack is:
Plugins and loaders are easy to write and allow you to control each step of the build, from loading and compiling CoffeeScript, LESS and JADE files to smart post processing and asset manifest building.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Rich and flexible plugin infrastructure
Plugins and loaders are easy to write and allow you to control each step of the build, from loading and compiling CoffeeScript, LESS and JADE files to smart post processing and asset manifest building.
Pro Tap into npm's huge module ecosystem
Using Webpack opens you up to npm, that has over 80k modules of which a great amount work both client-side and server-side. And the list is growing rapidly.
Pro Can create a single bundle or multiple chunks loaded on demand, to reduce initial loading time
Webpack allows you to split your codebase into multiple chunks. Chunks are loaded on demand. This reduces the initial loading time.
Pro Supports source maps for easier debugging
Source maps allow for easier debugging, because they allow you to find the problems within the origin files instead of the output file.
Pro ES6 module support
Webpack supports ES6 modules and their import
and export
methods without having to compile them to CommonJS require
Pro Share the same modules client-side and server-side
Because Webpack allows you to use the same require() function as node.js, you can easily share modules between the client-side and server-side.
Pro Bundles CommonJs and AMD modules (even combined)
Webpack supports AMD and CommonJS module styles. It performs clever static analysis on the AST of your code. It even has an evaluation engine to evaluate simple expressions. This allows you to support most existing libraries.
Pro Mix ES6 AMD and CommonJS
Webpack supports using all three module types, even in the same file.
Pro Limit plugin integration issues
Pro Manages non-JavaScript components
Bower is flexible enough that you can manage pretty much any package you would need on the front-end, so you can manage all your dependencies with one tool, including CSS, boilerplate, fonts and more.
Pro Simplicity provides more flexibility
Bower doesn't try to handle too much of the workflow process, which means it's more flexible, and can be incorporated into more workflows. It tries to just do package management well and nothing else, which is why so many workflow wrappers support it. Because it doesn't try to do too much vertical integration, it also means that the list of supported components that it manages is huge.
Pro Largest front-end specific package registry
Although npm is the largest javascript package manager, Bower is the most popular one built specifically for the front-end. With over 16000 components in its registry, pretty much every component you can think of is supported.
Pro Easily integrates with other tools
Because of Bower's focus on simplicity, it makes it much easier to integrate with other tools, so it has a wide range of support with workflow wrappers and task managers such as yeoman and grunt.
Pro Requires a flat dependency tree
While nested dependencies are better for backend modules that need lots of inter-dependency, they lead to bloated file sizes. Flat dependencies are better for frontend optimization, where file size needs to be more closely managed.
Pro Does not store components in a registry
You always get package directly from owner's repository, i.e. you will always get latest version as soon as its version tag is committed without need of waiting until owner publishes updated package.
Pro Simpler to manage varied code
Because Bower makes few assumptions about the source and format of packages, it's easier to apply it to more of your packages
Pro AMD & CJS compatible
Bower strives to be as simple of a package manager as possible and puts as few restrictions on the packages in the registry as possible, making it the most flexible package manager with the most potential packages.
Cons
Con Config file may be hard to understand
Due to a somewhat hard to grasp syntax, configuring Webpack may take some time.
Con Can not load files discovered during runtime
Con Seems like a redundant package manger
NPM with Webpack/Browserify can handle all the dependencies for both back-end and front-end. The only place where Bower may be useful is for projects which use libraries not supported by NPM, such as Polymer.
Con Deprecated
As of May 2017 Bower has been deprecated and will not receive any updates with new features. Bugs will still be fixed though for existing projects that use Bower.
Con Does not store components in a registry
Bower installs components directly from urls and repositories, which makes it more susceptible to components being taken down, with fewer guarantees about their availability.
Con Difficult to create bundles
To create a minified bundle of all the required JS dependencies other tools need to be used.
For example a JavaScript task runner which will automatically concatenate JavaScript files and minify them will be needed. Although it's done automatically, it's still extra work because the task runner needs to be configured.
Con Lack of signing of packages on the repository
Anyone can register their package on Bower's GIT registry - on one side, this brings a lot of ease to developers, but on the other hand, this can lead to security issues because the packages are not signed.
Con Less packages than npm due to a smaller ecosystem
- Bower: 36,000 packages
- Npm: 161,876 total packages (of course, many work only on the server)