When comparing JQuery vs animo.js, the Slant community recommends animo.js for most people. In the question“What are the best JavaScript animation frameworks or libraries?” animo.js is ranked 4th while JQuery is ranked 6th. The most important reason people chose animo.js is:
The only dependency Animo has is jQuery. The source also includes animate.css as a stylesheet, but you can always add yours if you wish to do so.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Easy to use
Much easier to use than traditional JavaScript. Allows a lot of features and function to be completed with less lines of code.
Pro Cross-browser support
jQuery works on all modern browsers, although there may be some issues with old versions of each browser.
Pro Strong community
The open source community has really embraced jQuery and it has many readily available plugins to help speed up the development process. In addition to this, it has great documentation and tutorials
Pro Few dependencies
The only dependency Animo has is jQuery. The source also includes animate.css as a stylesheet, but you can always add yours if you wish to do so.
Pro You can get personal help from the development team by paying
The animo.js team offer the option to contact and get help personally from the dev team by paying an amount of money (2 days for $5 2 weeks for $30 Lifetime for $100).
Alternatively, being an open source project you can still open an issue and get help from other developers that use this library.
Pro Includes CSS animation library out of the box
Animo.js has a CSS animation library (animate.css) included by default, which provides developers with 60 pre-made CSS animations where they can choose from.
Pro Open source
Animo.js is a free and open source tool.
Cons
Con It is not a framework, but rather a library.
Frameworks allow you to handle page routing, authentication, and services. jQuery is not a framework, but rather a library of DOM tools for websites.
e.g.: You cannot write page routing logic within jQuery.
Con Script download
As opposed to just using raw JavaScript, users will (automatically) download the jQuery script to their local computers in order for it to work. This results in more overhead on the initial page visit, regardless of how lightweight the framework is.
Con Development seems slow
From their Github repo it seems that development is going pretty slow. Issue reports are still getting answered but the latest commit to the master branch happened more than 6 months ago.