Tree-Shaking and Runtime Overhead in Modern UI Frameworks
When evaluating UI kits, developers often prioritize the API surface area. However, from an architectural standpoint, the production footprint—specifically the baseline cost of rendering a single entry point—is a critical metric for performance budgets.
To quantify this, I analyzed the production build outputs of three ecosystems: React + MUI, Angular + Material, and IK UI. Each test environment consisted of a clean Vite project rendering a single functional button component to measure the "dead weight" of the framework runtime and component library.
Comparative Data Breakdown
The following table reflects the raw output of the production build pipelines (Vite bundler).
| Framework | JS Bundle (Raw) | JS (Gzip) | CSS (Raw) | Total Assets |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| React MUI | 297.87 kB | 96.19 kB | — | 298.26 kB |
| Angular Material | 218.04 kB | 54.02 kB | 70.97 kB | 289.01 kB |
| IK UI | 134.49 kB | 43.95 kB | 62.67 kB | 197.16 kB |
Performance Implications
In a high-latency environment, the 163 kB difference between React MUI and IK UI is substantial. IK UI reduces by roughly 54% compared to MUI and lowers the overhead, leading to a faster First Contentful Paint (FCP). For developers building "lite" versions of platforms or performance-sensitive tools, the choice of UI kit acts as a ceiling for the application's speed.
Top comments (0)