Comparison with Other Engines

This page compares Web Engine Dev with other popular engines and frameworks that target web or have similar design goals. The focus is on architectural differences and honest tradeoffs, not marketing claims. Every engine has strengths -- the right choice depends on your project.

Quick Overview

	Web Engine Dev	Three.js	Babylon.js	PlayCanvas	Bevy
Language	TypeScript	JavaScript	TypeScript	JavaScript	Rust
Architecture	ECS (archetype SoA)	Scene graph (OOP)	Scene graph (OOP)	ECS-like (component)	ECS (archetype SoA)
Rendering	WebGPU (runtime)	WebGL + WebGPU	WebGL2 + WebGPU	WebGL2 + WebGPU	wgpu (native + WebGPU)
Modularity	93 independent packages	Single library	Single library	Single library	Modular crate system
Editor	Web-based (in-repo)	None (community)	Inspector	Cloud-based	None (community)
License	Proprietary	MIT	Apache 2.0	MIT	MIT + Apache 2.0

vs Three.js

Three.js is the most widely adopted 3D library for the web. It provides a scene graph, materials, geometries, loaders, and rendering utilities.

Architectural Differences

Three.js is a rendering library; Web Engine Dev is an engine ecosystem. Three.js gives you a scene graph, a renderer, and leaves everything else (physics, audio, input, ECS, asset management) to you or the community. Web Engine Dev provides all of these as first-party packages with consistent APIs.

Object-oriented vs. data-oriented. Three.js uses classical OOP with class inheritance (Mesh extends Object3D extends EventDispatcher). Web Engine Dev uses ECS with composition -- entities are IDs, components are data, and systems are functions. This trades familiar OOP patterns for better cache locality and easier composition.

Single library vs. modular packages. Three.js is imported as one package. Web Engine Dev is 93 packages you can mix and match. This means Web Engine Dev has more upfront complexity but better tree-shaking and separation of concerns.

Where Three.js is Stronger

• Ecosystem maturity: Massive community, thousands of examples, extensive third-party addons
• Learning curve: Simpler mental model for beginners (create mesh, add to scene, render)
• Documentation: Extensive docs, examples for nearly every feature, and a large community answering questions
• Adoption: Used in production by countless companies; battle-tested at scale

Where Web Engine Dev is Stronger

• Built-in game systems: Input, audio, physics, animation, networking, AI, and pathfinding are first-party
• ECS architecture: Better performance characteristics for large entity counts and complex system interactions
• Type safety: Full TypeScript with strict mode throughout, not bolted on after the fact
• WebGPU-first: Designed for WebGPU from day one, not retrofitted onto a WebGL codebase

vs Babylon.js

Babylon.js is a full-featured web game engine maintained by Microsoft. It provides rendering, physics (via Ammo.js/Cannon.js), audio, GUI, and an inspector.

Architectural Differences

Monolithic vs. modular. Babylon.js is a single large library (~5 MB unminified) with optional tree-shaking. Web Engine Dev is split into independent packages where you install only what you need, resulting in smaller bundles for focused use cases.

Scene graph vs. ECS. Babylon.js uses a scene graph with TransformNode inheritance. Components exist but aren't the primary architecture. Web Engine Dev uses ECS as the primary coordination layer.

Both have editors. Babylon.js has the Inspector (a runtime debug tool) and the Babylon.js Editor. Web Engine Dev has a web-based editor with hierarchy, inspector, asset browser, and viewport panels.

Where Babylon.js is Stronger

• Maturity and stability: Production-tested by Microsoft and many studios since 2013
• Built-in features: GUI system, physics integration, native NME (Node Material Editor), XR support, and many more are deeply integrated
• PG (Playground): Excellent online playground for experimentation
• Corporate backing: Full-time engineering team at Microsoft

Where Web Engine Dev is Stronger

• Modularity: Individual packages can be used without the full engine; Babylon.js is harder to use piecemeal
• ECS performance: Archetype-based SoA storage provides better cache utilization for large worlds
• Interface-first physics: Clean physics interface with swappable backends (Rapier), vs. Babylon's tighter coupling to specific physics engines
• Package layering: Strict dependency rules prevent circular dependencies and ensure clean architecture

vs PlayCanvas

PlayCanvas is a WebGL/WebGPU game engine with a cloud-based editor and strong mobile performance.

Architectural Differences

Cloud-dependent vs. self-hosted. PlayCanvas's editor runs in the cloud, with projects stored on PlayCanvas servers. Web Engine Dev's editor runs locally, and all code lives in your repository. PlayCanvas does offer an open-source engine runtime, but the editor workflow is cloud-first.

Component system vs. ECS. PlayCanvas uses a component system where components contain both data and behavior (similar to Unity's MonoBehaviour pattern). Web Engine Dev separates data (components) from logic (systems), following the ECS pattern.

Both target WebGPU. PlayCanvas was one of the first engines to adopt WebGPU alongside WebGL2. Web Engine Dev runs on WebGPU at runtime.

Where PlayCanvas is Stronger

• Cloud editor: Collaborative real-time editing, no local setup required
• Mobile optimization: Long track record of high-performance mobile web games
• Asset pipeline: Mature cloud-based asset processing with compression and optimization
• Production track record: Powers many shipped commercial web games

Where Web Engine Dev is Stronger

• Self-hosted workflow: Full source control, no cloud dependency, works offline
• ECS architecture: Data-oriented design with archetype storage for better performance scaling
• TypeScript-native: Written in TypeScript from the ground up; PlayCanvas is primarily JavaScript with TypeScript definitions
• Modular packages: Use individual systems without the full engine

vs Bevy

Bevy is a Rust game engine with an ECS-first architecture. While it targets native platforms primarily, it has experimental WebGPU support.

Architectural Differences

Shared philosophy, different language. Bevy and Web Engine Dev share remarkably similar design values: ECS-first architecture with archetype storage, modular plugin system, data-oriented design, and composition over inheritance. The primary difference is the language -- Rust vs. TypeScript.

Native-first vs. web-first. Bevy targets native platforms (Windows, macOS, Linux) with experimental web support via wasm-bindgen and WebGPU. Web Engine Dev targets the web browser as the primary deployment target.

Similar ECS design. Both use archetype-based storage, typed queries, resources, events, system scheduling with automatic parallelism detection, and a plugin model for composition. If you're familiar with Bevy's ECS, Web Engine Dev's will feel natural.

Where Bevy is Stronger

• Performance ceiling: Rust's zero-cost abstractions, borrow checker, and native compilation provide higher raw performance
• Memory safety: Rust's ownership system prevents entire categories of bugs at compile time
• Native platform access: Direct access to GPU APIs, file system, threads without browser limitations
• Community momentum: Large and rapidly growing community, extensive plugin ecosystem

Where Web Engine Dev is Stronger

• Web deployment: Zero-install games that run in any modern browser
• TypeScript ecosystem: Access to the npm ecosystem, familiar tooling (Vite, ESLint, Vitest)
• Editor: Built-in web editor with visual editing, vs. Bevy's current lack of an official editor
• Lower barrier to entry: TypeScript is more approachable than Rust for most game developers
• Hot reload: Faster iteration cycles without recompilation

Choosing the Right Tool

Choose Web Engine Dev if you want a modular, TypeScript-native engine with ECS architecture for web-first games and applications, and you value being able to pick and choose which systems to include.

Choose Three.js if you need a rendering library for 3D visualization, product configurators, or creative web experiences where a full game engine is overkill.

Choose Babylon.js if you want a mature, batteries-included engine with strong corporate backing and don't need fine-grained modularity.

Choose PlayCanvas if you want a cloud-based development workflow with collaborative editing and a proven track record in mobile web games.

Choose Bevy if you need maximum performance through native compilation and are comfortable with Rust, or if your primary targets are desktop/console rather than web.

Next Steps

• Getting Started -- Try Web Engine Dev for yourself
• Philosophy & Design -- Understand the design values in depth
• Architecture Overview -- See how the system is structured