When comparing Pixi.js vs Phaser, the Slant community recommends Phaser for most people. In the question“What are the best JavaScript game engines?” Phaser is ranked 2nd while Pixi.js is ranked 6th. The most important reason people chose Phaser is:
Phaser keeps things simple and as such is easy to use by beginners.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
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.
Pro Beginner-friendly
Phaser keeps things simple and as such is easy to use by beginners.
Pro 1000s of examples
Thousands of example are on the Phaser website, which show everything you could want to do with Phaser.
Pro Supports WebGL with canvas fallback
If WebGL is unavailable, Phaser automatically switches to HTML5 canvas.
Pro Targets mobile browsers
Built specifically for mobile web browsers.
Cons
Con Not a complete solution
Pixi only provides the renderer.
Con Missing accessibility features
While not a big issue, it may be a dealbreaker for some.
Con Poor code structure
There's little in terms of cohesiveness in classes, methods or patterns.