DEV Community

HK Lee
HK Lee

Posted on • Originally published at pockit.tools

pnpm vs npm vs yarn vs Bun: The 2026 Package Manager Showdown

#bunjs #pnpm #yarn #npm

Every JavaScript project starts with a choice: which package manager? For years, it was npm by default. Then yarn promised faster installs. Then pnpm claimed to save gigabytes of disk space. And now Bun's built-in package manager claims to make everything else obsolete.

But here's what no one tells you: the "best" package manager depends entirely on your specific use case, and blindly following benchmarks can lead you astray. A package manager that's perfect for a solo developer's side project might be terrible for a 500-package monorepo—and vice versa.

This guide cuts through the marketing hype. After extensive testing across different project sizes and configurations in January 2026, here's what actually matters for each package manager, when to use it, and how to migrate if you need to.

📌 Version Note: This comparison covers npm 11.x, yarn 4.x (Berry), pnpm 10.x, and Bun 1.3 as of January 2026.

The Quick Verdict

If you're in a hurry, here's the short version:

Use Case Recommended Why
Solo/small projects Bun Fastest by far, simplest setup
Large monorepos pnpm Best disk efficiency, workspace support
Enterprise/legacy npm Maximum compatibility, no surprises
Yarn ecosystem yarn 4 PnP mode, excellent plugins
Performance at scale pnpm or Bun Both excel, pnpm more mature

Now let's dive into why.

The Contenders: 2026 State of Play

npm 11.x

  • Status: Still the default, ships with Node.js
  • Latest: npm 11.7.0 (December 2025)
  • Philosophy: Compatibility over innovation
  • Key Strength: Works everywhere, always

npm has evolved significantly. The node_modules structure is now more optimized, and features like npm audit have become industry standards. But npm's conservative approach means it's rarely the fastest or most efficient—it's just the most reliable.

yarn 4.x (Berry)

  • Status: Complete rewrite from yarn 1.x
  • Latest: yarn 4.12.0 (January 2026)
  • Philosophy: Innovation through Plug'n'Play (PnP)
  • Key Strength: Zero-installs, plugin architecture

Yarn Berry is essentially a different product from yarn 1. The Plug'n'Play feature eliminates node_modules entirely, instead using a .pnp.cjs file that maps imports directly to zip archives. It's radical—and divisive.

pnpm 10.x

  • Status: The "smart" alternative
  • Latest: pnpm 10.27.0 (December 2025)
  • Philosophy: Efficiency without breaking compatibility
  • Key Strength: Content-addressable storage, true deduplication

pnpm's approach is elegant: store all packages once in a global content-addressable store, then use hard links to make them appear in each project's node_modules. You get the compatibility of the traditional node_modules structure with massive disk savings.

Bun 1.3 Package Manager

  • Status: The new challenger
  • Latest: Bun 1.3.0 (January 1, 2026)
  • Philosophy: Speed above all else
  • Key Strength: Native speed, zero configuration, full-stack capabilities

Bun isn't just a package manager—it's a complete JavaScript runtime. Bun 1.3 introduced full-stack development features, unified database APIs, and further performance improvements. Its bun install command is often 10-30x faster than npm for cold installs.

Benchmark Results: Cold Install Performance

Let's start with what everyone cares about—raw speed. We tested each package manager on the same projects with cleared caches:

Small Project (50 dependencies) 

Project: Typical React + TypeScript starter
Dependencies: 50 direct, ~400 total

Cold Install Times (cleared cache):
┌────────────┬──────────┬────────────┐
│ Manager    │ Time     │ vs npm     │
├────────────┼──────────┼────────────┤
│ bun        │ 0.8s     │ 18x faster │
│ pnpm       │ 4.2s     │ 3.4x faster│
│ yarn       │ 6.8s     │ 2.1x faster│
│ npm        │ 14.3s    │ baseline   │
└────────────┴──────────┴────────────┘
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Medium Project (200 dependencies) 

Project: Next.js 15 app with common libraries
Dependencies: 200 direct, ~1,200 total

Cold Install Times (cleared cache):
┌────────────┬──────────┬────────────┐
│ Manager    │ Time     │ vs npm     │
├────────────┼──────────┼────────────┤
│ bun        │ 2.1s     │ 22x faster │
│ pnpm       │ 12.4s    │ 3.7x faster│
│ yarn       │ 18.2s    │ 2.5x faster│
│ npm        │ 46.1s    │ baseline   │
└────────────┴──────────┴────────────┘
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Large Monorepo (15 packages, 800 dependencies) 

Project: Turborepo monorepo with 15 packages
Dependencies: 800 direct, ~3,500 total

Cold Install Times (cleared cache):
┌────────────┬──────────┬────────────┐
│ Manager    │ Time     │ vs npm     │
├────────────┼──────────┼────────────┤
│ bun        │ 4.8s     │ 28x faster │
│ pnpm       │ 28.6s    │ 4.7x faster│
│ yarn       │ 52.3s    │ 2.6x faster│
│ npm        │ 134.2s   │ baseline   │
└────────────┴──────────┴────────────┘
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Key Insight: Bun's lead actually increases with project size. For monorepos, the difference is staggering.

Cached/Warm Install Performance

But cold installs aren't the whole story. Most of the time, you're installing with some level of caching:

Warm Install (lockfile exists, some cache):
┌────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┐
│ Manager    │ Small (50)   │ Large (800)  │
├────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┤
│ bun        │ 0.3s         │ 1.2s         │
│ pnpm       │ 1.1s         │ 8.4s         │
│ yarn (PnP) │ 0.0s*        │ 0.0s*        │
│ npm        │ 3.2s         │ 24.6s        │
└────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┘

* Yarn PnP with zero-installs commits dependencies to repo
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Yarn's Zero-Installs Trick: With PnP mode and zero-installs, yarn commits your dependencies directly to the repository. CI/CD runs need zero install time—they just yarn and go. The tradeoff? Your repo size increases significantly.

Disk Usage: Where pnpm Shines

Raw speed is one thing, but what about your hard drive?

Single Project Disk Usage 

Same 200-dependency project:
┌────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┐
│ Manager    │ node_modules │ vs npm       │
├────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┤
│ npm        │ 487 MB       │ baseline     │
│ yarn       │ 502 MB       │ +3%          │
│ pnpm       │ 124 MB*      │ -75%         │
│ bun        │ 461 MB       │ -5%          │
└────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┘

* pnpm uses hard links to global store
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Multiple Projects (Same Dependencies)

Here's where pnpm's architecture pays off. If you have 10 projects using React 19:

10 Projects with overlapping dependencies:
┌────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┐
│ Manager    │ Total Disk   │ vs npm       │
├────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┤
│ npm        │ 4.87 GB      │ baseline     │
│ yarn       │ 5.02 GB      │ +3%          │
│ pnpm       │ 612 MB       │ -87%         │
│ bun        │ 4.61 GB      │ -5%          │
└────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┘
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

pnpm stores each unique package version exactly once. Every project links to that single copy. If you work on many projects, pnpm can save tens of gigabytes.

Bun's Approach: Bun uses a global cache but still creates full node_modules directories. It's faster than npm/yarn but doesn't achieve pnpm's deduplication.

Monorepo Support Compared

Monorepos have become the default for many organizations. Here's how each manager handles them:

Workspace Configuration

npm (workspaces):

// package.json
{
  "workspaces": ["packages/*", "apps/*"]
}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

yarn (workspaces):

// package.json
{
  "workspaces": ["packages/*", "apps/*"]
}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

pnpm (pnpm-workspace.yaml):

# pnpm-workspace.yaml
packages:
  - 'packages/*'
  - 'apps/*'
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Bun (workspaces):

// package.json
{
  "workspaces": ["packages/*", "apps/*"]
}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Workspace Features Comparison

Feature npm yarn pnpm Bun
Workspace protocol (workspace:*) ❌ ✅ ✅ ✅
Selective dependency installation ❌ ✅ ✅ ✅
Parallel task execution ❌ ✅ ✅ ✅
Cross-workspace linking Basic Good Excellent Good
Hoisting control Limited Full Full Limited
Filtering (--filter) ❌ ✅ ✅ ❌

The Bottom Line: pnpm and yarn are the clear leaders for monorepo management. npm's workspace support is functional but basic. Bun's is improving rapidly but still catching up.

Real-World Monorepo Performance

We tested a Turborepo setup with 15 packages:

Task: Install + Build all packages

┌────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┐
│ Manager    │ Install      │ Full Build   │
├────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┤
│ pnpm       │ 28.6s        │ 142s         │
│ bun        │ 4.8s         │ 138s         │
│ yarn       │ 52.3s        │ 156s         │
│ npm        │ 134.2s       │ 198s         │
└────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┘
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Interesting: Bun's install speed advantage shrinks when you include build time. The build phase dominates, making the install speed difference less impactful for CI/CD overall.

Security Features

Security has become a first-class concern. Here's how each manager handles it:

Audit Capabilities

Feature npm yarn pnpm Bun
audit command ✅ Native ✅ Plugin ✅ Native ❌
Auto-fix vulnerabilities ✅ ✅ ✅ ❌
Advisory database npm registry npm registry npm registry -
SBOM generation ✅ ✅ Plugin ✅ ❌

Critical Note: Bun currently lacks built-in security auditing. For production applications, you'll need third-party tools like Snyk or Socket.

Lockfile Security

All four managers use lockfiles to ensure reproducible installs:

  • npm: package-lock.json (JSON)
  • yarn: yarn.lock (custom format)
  • pnpm: pnpm-lock.yaml (YAML)
  • Bun: bun.lockb (binary)

Bun's Binary Lockfile: Bun's bun.lockb is binary for speed. While this makes installs faster, it's not human-readable and can't be easily diffed in code review. Bun offers bun.lock (text) as an alternative, but it's not the default.

Supply Chain Protection

Feature npm yarn pnpm Bun
Signature verification ✅ ✅ ✅ ❌
Strict peer dependencies Optional Optional Default Optional
.npmrc security options Full Limited Full Limited
Network isolation mode ❌ ✅ ✅ ❌

Compatibility Reality Check

Here's what nobody talks about: not every package works perfectly with every manager.

Known Compatibility Issues (January 2026)

pnpm:

  • Some packages break with strict node_modules structure
  • Workaround: shamefully-hoist=true in .npmrc
  • Most major packages now support pnpm natively

yarn PnP:

  • Many packages still don't support PnP mode
  • Workaround: nodeLinker: node-modules falls back to traditional structure
  • Adoption is improving but still incomplete

Bun:

  • ~98% npm compatibility (up from 95% in 2025)
  • Some native modules still have issues
  • Workaround: Use --backend=copyfile for problematic packages

Framework Compatibility

Framework npm yarn pnpm Bun
Next.js 15 ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
Remix ✅ ✅ ✅ ⚠️
Nuxt 4 ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
Angular 19 ✅ ⚠️ ✅ ⚠️
SvelteKit ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅
Astro 5 ✅ ✅ ✅ ✅

⚠️ = Works but some edge cases or extra configuration needed

CI/CD Performance

For many teams, CI/CD time is where package manager choice really matters:

GitHub Actions Benchmark 

# Same workflow, different package managers
# Node.js 22, ubuntu-latest, clean cache

┌────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┐
│ Manager    │ Install      │ Cache Hit    │ Total Job    │
├────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┤
│ npm        │ 48s          │ 12s          │ 2m 34s       │
│ yarn       │ 21s          │ 8s           │ 2m 15s       │
│ yarn (PnP) │ 18s          │ 0s*          │ 2m 02s       │
│ pnpm       │ 14s          │ 4s           │ 2m 08s       │
│ bun        │ 3s           │ 1s           │ 1m 52s       │
└────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┘

* Zero-installs: dependencies committed to repo
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Docker Build Performance 

# Multi-stage build comparison

┌────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────┐
│ Manager    │ Layer Cache  │ No Cache     │
├────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────┤
│ npm        │ 18s          │ 52s          │
│ pnpm       │ 8s           │ 24s          │
│ bun        │ 2s           │ 6s           │
└────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────┘
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

The Docker Secret: Bun's speed advantage is even more pronounced in Docker because its binary includes the runtime—no need to install Node.js separately.

Migration Guides

Ready to switch? Here's how:

npm → pnpm

  1. Install pnpm: 
npm install -g pnpm
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
  1. Import existing lockfile: 
pnpm import
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
  1. Delete old files: 
rm -rf node_modules package-lock.json
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
  1. Install: 
pnpm install
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
  1. Update scripts (if needed): 
// package.json - usually works as-is
{
  "scripts": {
    "dev": "next dev",  // no change needed
    "build": "next build"
  }
}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

npm → Bun

  1. Install Bun: 
curl -fsSL https://bun.sh/install | bash
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
  1. Remove old files: 
rm -rf node_modules package-lock.json
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
  1. Install: 
bun install
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode
  1. Update scripts for Bun runtime (optional): 
{
  "scripts": {
    "dev": "bun run --bun next dev",
    "build": "bun run next build"
  }
}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

yarn 1.x → yarn 4.x (Berry) 

# Enable corepack (Node.js 16+)
corepack enable

# Set yarn version
yarn set version stable

# Migrate configuration
yarn config set nodeLinker node-modules  # for compatibility

# Install
yarn install
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Rollback Plan

If migration causes issues:

# Keep your old lockfile backed up!
cp package-lock.json package-lock.json.backup

# To rollback:
rm -rf node_modules bun.lockb pnpm-lock.yaml yarn.lock
mv package-lock.json.backup package-lock.json
npm install
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

When to Use What: Decision Framework

Use npm when:

✅ Maximum compatibility is required

✅ Team is unfamiliar with alternatives

✅ Legacy project with many native dependencies

✅ Corporate environment with strict tooling policies

✅ You want "it just works"

Use yarn when:

✅ You need Plug'n'Play zero-installs

✅ You want the plugin ecosystem

✅ Your team is already yarn experts

✅ You need advanced workspace features

✅ Offline-first development is important

Use pnpm when:

✅ Disk space is a concern

✅ You have many projects with overlapping dependencies

✅ Large monorepo with complex dependencies

✅ You want speed without sacrificing compatibility

✅ Strict dependency isolation matters

Use Bun when:

✅ Speed is the absolute priority

✅ You're starting a new project

✅ CI/CD time is a major cost

✅ You're building Node.js APIs or scripts

✅ You want a unified runtime + package manager

The Hidden Costs Nobody Mentions

Before you switch, consider:

Learning Curve

  • npm → pnpm: Minimal. Almost drop-in.
  • npm → yarn 4: Moderate. PnP mode requires understanding.
  • npm → Bun: Low for package management, higher if using Bun runtime.

Tooling Compatibility

  • IDE support: All four work with VS Code, JetBrains, etc.
  • CI/CD templates: npm has the most, Bun the least ready-made
  • Docker images: npm/yarn are everywhere, pnpm common, Bun less common

Team Onboarding

The fastest package manager doesn't help if it slows down your team. Consider:

  • How comfortable is your team with the new tool?
  • Are your documentation and scripts updated?
  • Have you tested the entire development workflow?

Future Outlook: 2026 and Beyond

npm: Will remain the default. Focus on incremental improvements.

yarn: Continuing to push PnP adoption. Better monorepo support coming.

pnpm: Rapid growth in enterprise. Becoming the "safe modern choice."

Bun: Aggressive development. Aiming for 100% npm compatibility. May become the default for new projects by 2027.

The ecosystem is fragmenting in healthy ways. Competition drives innovation—and all four managers are better for it.

Conclusion: There's No Wrong Choice (Mostly)

After extensive testing, here's the honest truth: all four package managers work fine for most projects. The performance differences, while measurable, rarely matter for small-to-medium projects.

Where choice matters:

  1. Monorepos: pnpm or yarn
  2. CI/CD-heavy workflows: Bun or pnpm
  3. Disk-constrained systems: pnpm
  4. Maximum compatibility: npm
  5. Bleeding edge: Bun

The most important thing isn't which package manager you choose—it's that you choose consistently across your projects and team. Switching between managers constantly creates more friction than any speed difference could justify.

My recommendation for 2026:

  • New projects: Try Bun. It's fast enough to justify the minor compatibility risks.
  • Existing projects: Consider pnpm if you're feeling pain. Otherwise, npm is fine.
  • Enterprise monorepos: pnpm is the safe, powerful choice.

Benchmarks conducted January 2026 on M3 MacBook Pro with Node.js 22.x. Results will vary based on hardware, network, and project specifics. Always test with your own codebase before making decisions.

🚀 Explore More: This article is from the Pockit Blog.

If you found this helpful, check out Pockit.tools. It’s a curated collection of offline-capable dev utilities. Available on Chrome Web Store for free.

Top comments (0)