DEV Community

Saswata Pal
Saswata Pal

Posted on

Storybook 10: Why I Chose It Over Ladle and Histoire for Component Documentation

#storybook #componentlibrary #documentation #vite

Storybook 10: Why I Chose It Over Ladle and Histoire for Component Documentation

I'll be honest: Storybook is slow and complicated.

When I started building the CodeCraft Labs UI library, I knew I needed component documentation. The question was: do I use the industry-standard Storybook, or try one of the newer, faster alternatives like Ladle or Histoire?

Storybook 10 takes 8 seconds to cold-start. Ladle does it in 1.2 seconds. That's a 6.7x difference. So why did I still choose Storybook?

Because speed isn't everything. What matters for component documentation is interactivity, ecosystem, and deployment options. And in those areas, Storybook is untouchable.

Here's my journey from researching alternatives to having 50+ interactive component stories deployed to production, and the real tradeoffs I discovered along the way.

🎯 The Problem

The Context

I was building a UI component library with:

  • 11 components: Badge, Button, Card, Dialog, Hero, Input, Navigation, Stack, Avatar, Container, etc.
  • 50+ stories: Multiple variants, sizes, tones for each component
  • Target users: Developers (internal + external), designers, stakeholders
  • Requirements: Interactive demos, prop controls, visual documentation
  • Deployment: Static hosting on Vercel
  • Tech stack: React 19, TypeScript 5.6, Vite 5, Tailwind v4

The Challenge

Without proper component documentation:

  • 🎨 Designers can't see what's available or how to use it
  • 💻 Developers waste time reading source code to understand props
  • 🤝 Teams can't maintain consistency across projects
  • 📝 Documentation gets outdated quickly
  • 🐛 Regressions go unnoticed without visual testing
  • ⏱️ Onboarding takes hours explaining components

Real Pain Example

Before Storybook:

// Developer asks: "How do I use the Button component?"
// Answer: "Read the TypeScript types and guess..."
<Button variant="???" size="???" tone="???" />

// 30 minutes later: Found 5 variants, 4 sizes, 8 tones
// Still don't know what they look like visually
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Why This Decision Mattered

  • 📚 Documentation quality: Interactive > static docs
  • 🚀 Developer velocity: Fast lookup > digging through code
  • 🎨 Design collaboration: Visual demos enable feedback
  • 🔄 Component testing: Isolated environment for each state
  • 📦 Deployment: Need static export for easy hosting
  • ⏱️ Development speed: Fast dev server = faster iteration

✅ Evaluation Criteria

Must-Have Requirements

  1. Interactive controls - Change props visually in real-time
  2. React 19 support - Works with latest React
  3. TypeScript support - Auto-infer props from types
  4. Static export - Deploy as static site (no backend)
  5. Vite integration - Fast dev server, matches build tool

Nice-to-Have Features

  • Docs mode (MDX for rich documentation)
  • Addons ecosystem (accessibility, visual regression)
  • Multiple frameworks (future Vue/Svelte support)
  • Viewport testing (mobile, tablet, desktop)
  • Keyboard shortcuts
  • Search functionality

Deal Breakers

  • ❌ No interactive prop controls (just static examples)
  • ❌ Requires server-side rendering (want static)
  • ❌ Incompatible with React 19
  • ❌ No TypeScript prop inference
  • ❌ Can't deploy to static hosting

Scoring Framework

Criteria Weight Why It Matters
Interactivity 30% Core feature - need prop controls
Ecosystem 25% Addons for accessibility, testing
Developer Experience 20% Daily usage - must be pleasant
Deployment 15% Easy static hosting critical
Performance 10% Speed nice but not critical for docs

🥊 The Contenders

Storybook 10.0.6 - The Industry Standard

  • Best For: Production design systems needing full ecosystem
  • Key Strength: 1000+ addons, universal adoption, feature-complete
  • Key Weakness: Slower startup, more complex config
  • GitHub Stars: 84k ⭐
  • NPM Downloads: 10M/week 📦
  • First Release: 2016
  • Maintained By: Storybook team (Chromatic Inc.)
  • Language: TypeScript
  • Current Version: 10.0.6 (React 19 support since v8)
  • Bundle Size: ~50MB node_modules, 5-10MB static output

Ladle - The Fast Alternative

  • Best For: Personal projects, speed-critical workflows
  • Key Strength: 6.7x faster than Storybook, minimal config
  • Key Weakness: Limited ecosystem, basic features only
  • GitHub Stars: 2.6k ⭐
  • NPM Downloads: 40k/week 📦
  • First Release: 2021
  • Maintained By: Uber (open source)
  • Language: TypeScript (Vite-native)
  • Current Version: 4.x (stable)
  • Bundle Size: ~5MB node_modules, 1-2MB static output

Histoire - The Vue/React Hybrid

  • Best For: Vue projects, or teams wanting modern UI
  • Key Strength: Beautiful interface, fast, docs support
  • Key Weakness: Vue-first (React is secondary), smaller community
  • GitHub Stars: 3.2k ⭐
  • NPM Downloads: 80k/week 📦
  • First Release: 2022
  • Maintained By: Guillaume Chau (Vue core team)
  • Language: TypeScript (Vite-native)
  • Current Version: 0.17.x (pre-1.0)
  • Bundle Size: ~10MB node_modules, 2-3MB static output

Docusaurus - The Wrong Tool

  • Best For: General documentation sites (not components)
  • Key Strength: Great for markdown docs, MDX support
  • Key Weakness: No interactive component controls (wrong tool)
  • Note: Not a component playground - it's a docs site generator
  • Use Case: API docs, guides, blogs - NOT component libraries

📊 Head-to-Head Comparison

Quick Feature Matrix

Feature Storybook Ladle Histoire Docusaurus
Cold Start 8.2s 1.2s 2.1s 3.5s
Hot Reload 2.3s 0.5s 0.8s 1.2s
Build Time (50 stories) 24.7s 8.3s 12.1s N/A
Interactive Controls ✅ Full ⚠️ Basic ✅ Good ❌ None
Docs Mode (MDX) ✅ Yes ❌ No ✅ Yes ✅ Yes
Addons ✅ 1000+ ❌ None ⚠️ Few ⚠️ Plugins
React 19 Support ✅ Yes ✅ Yes ✅ Yes ✅ Yes
TypeScript Inference ✅ Great ✅ Good ✅ Good ⚠️ Manual
Static Export ✅ Yes ✅ Yes ✅ Yes ✅ Yes
Viewport Testing ✅ Built-in ❌ No ⚠️ Basic ❌ No
Accessibility Testing ✅ Addon ❌ No ❌ No ❌ No
Visual Regression ✅ Chromatic ❌ No ❌ No ❌ No
Multi-Framework ✅ All ⚠️ React only ✅ Vue/React N/A
Node Modules Size 50MB 5MB 10MB 20MB

Performance Benchmarks (My Project)

Real numbers from my 50-story UI library:

Metric Storybook Ladle Histoire
Initial Build 24.7s 8.3s 12.1s
Cold Start 8.2s 1.2s 2.1s
Hot Reload 2.3s 0.5s 0.8s
Full Rebuild 18.4s 6.1s 9.3s
Memory Usage 520MB 180MB 240MB
Static Output 8.2MB 1.8MB 2.4MB

Performance Winner: Ladle (6.7x faster cold start)

Feature Winner: Storybook (complete ecosystem)

Why I Chose Storybook (Despite the Speed Hit)

After benchmarking all three, I went with Storybook. Here's why:

1. Ecosystem Wins Long-Term

I need designers and developers to play with components:

  • Change variants: primary, secondary, outline
  • Adjust sizes: sm, md, lg, xl
  • Toggle states: disabled, loading, error
  • See all tones: blue, purple, green, red, etc.

Storybook: ✅ Full controls with auto-generated args

Ladle: ⚠️ Basic prop controls only

Histoire: ✅ Good controls, clean UI

2. Documentation (Critical)

Components need written explanations, not just visual demos:

  • When to use each variant
  • Accessibility guidelines
  • Code examples
  • Design tokens

Storybook: ✅ MDX docs mode, rich formatting

Ladle: ❌ No docs mode

Histoire: ✅ Docs support

3. Deployment (Critical)

The documentation needs to be publicly accessible:

  • Deploy to Vercel
  • Custom domain
  • Static export
  • Fast loading

Storybook: ✅ Static build, works anywhere

Ladle: ✅ Static build

Histoire: ✅ Static build

4. Ecosystem (Important)

Will I need addons in the future?

  • Accessibility testing
  • Visual regression (Chromatic)
  • Design tokens display
  • Figma integration

Storybook: ✅ 1000+ addons

Ladle: ❌ No addon ecosystem

Histoire: ⚠️ Limited addons

5. Speed (Nice to have)

Development experience matters, but not at the cost of features.

Storybook: ❌ 8s cold start, 2s hot reload

Ladle: ✅ 1.2s cold start, <500ms hot reload

Histoire: ✅ ~2s cold start, <1s hot reload

Why I Chose Storybook

Despite being the slowest option, Storybook won on features.

Here's my actual setup:

// .storybook/main.ts
import type { StorybookConfig } from '@storybook/react-vite';

const config: StorybookConfig = {
  stories: ['../src/**/*.stories.@(js|jsx|mjs|ts|tsx)'],
  addons: [
    '@storybook/addon-links',
    '@storybook/addon-docs',
  ],
  framework: {
    name: '@storybook/react-vite', // Using Vite for speed
    options: {},
  },
  docs: {
    defaultName: 'Documentation',
  },
  typescript: {
    check: false, // Faster dev experience
    reactDocgen: 'react-docgen-typescript',
    reactDocgenTypescriptOptions: {
      shouldExtractLiteralValuesFromEnum: true,
      propFilter: (prop) => 
        (prop.parent ? !/node_modules/.test(prop.parent.fileName) : true),
    },
  },
};

export default config;
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Storybook + Vite = Best of Both Worlds

Storybook 10 with @storybook/react-vite is significantly faster than older Webpack-based Storybook:

  • Cold start: 8s (vs 45s with Webpack)
  • Hot reload: 2s (vs 8s with Webpack)
  • Build: 25s for 50 stories

Not as fast as Ladle, but acceptable.

Writing Stories is Delightful

Using CSF 3.0 (Component Story Format):

// Button.stories.tsx
import type { Meta, StoryObj } from '@storybook/react-vite';
import { Button } from '../components/Button';

const meta: Meta<typeof Button> = {
  title: 'Components/Button',
  component: Button,
  parameters: {
    layout: 'centered',
  },
  tags: ['autodocs'],
  argTypes: {
    variant: {
      control: 'select',
      options: ['primary', 'secondary', 'outline', 'ghost'],
    },
    size: {
      control: 'select',
      options: ['sm', 'md', 'lg', 'xl'],
    },
  },
};

export default meta;
type Story = StoryObj<typeof meta>;

// Stories are just objects!
export const Primary: Story = {
  args: {
    variant: 'primary',
    children: 'Button',
  },
};

export const AllSizes: Story = {
  render: () => (
    <div className="flex items-center gap-4">
      <Button size="sm">Small</Button>
      <Button size="md">Medium</Button>
      <Button size="lg">Large</Button>
      <Button size="xl">Extra Large</Button>
    </div>
  ),
};
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

This is clean. No boilerplate. TypeScript autocompletion works perfectly. Controls are auto-generated.

The Docs Mode is Killer

Each component gets automatic documentation:

/**
 * Button component with multiple variants and sizes.
 * 
 * @example
 * <Button variant="primary" size="lg">Click me</Button>
 */
export const Button = ({ variant = 'primary', size = 'md', ...props }) => {
  // Component code
};
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Storybook extracts this and generates:

  • Props table with types
  • Default values
  • Description from JSDoc
  • Live examples
  • Controls panel

Real Components, Real Data

Here's my actual Badge component with all 50 variants documented:

// Badge.stories.tsx
export const AllVariants: Story = {
  render: () => (
    <div className="flex flex-wrap gap-2">
      {/* Solid variants */}
      <Badge variant="solid" tone="blue">Blue Solid</Badge>
      <Badge variant="solid" tone="purple">Purple Solid</Badge>
      <Badge variant="solid" tone="green">Green Solid</Badge>

      {/* Soft variants */}
      <Badge variant="soft" tone="blue">Blue Soft</Badge>
      <Badge variant="soft" tone="purple">Purple Soft</Badge>

      {/* Outline variants */}
      <Badge variant="outline" tone="blue">Blue Outline</Badge>

      {/* All combinations = 50+ stories */}
    </div>
  ),
};
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Designers love this. They can see every variant side-by-side, copy the code, and know exactly what's available.

The Performance Reality Check

Let me be honest about Storybook's speed:

Development Speed (My Machine - M1 Mac):

  • Cold start: 8.2s
  • Hot reload: 1.8-2.5s
  • Build (50 stories): 24.7s

Ladle Would Be:

  • Cold start: 1.2s (6.8x faster)
  • Hot reload: 0.4s (5x faster)
  • Build: 8s (3x faster)

Is this acceptable? Yes, because:

  1. I cold-start maybe 3-4 times per day
  2. Hot reload is fast enough (not annoying)
  3. Build time doesn't matter (CI does it)

The Slow Parts Don't Hurt

What actually slows down development:

  • ❌ Slow hot reload (>5s) - Storybook is fine
  • ❌ Crashes requiring restart - Haven't had any
  • ❌ Slow prop changes - Controls update instantly
  • ❌ Waiting for builds - Only on deploy

Storybook avoids all the actually painful slowness.

What Ladle Would Give Me

If I chose Ladle, I'd get:

✅ Wins:

  • 6.8x faster cold start (save ~6s, 3-4 times/day = 24s/day)
  • 5x faster hot reload (save ~1.5s per change)
  • Simpler configuration
  • Smaller node_modules

❌ Losses:

  • No docs mode (can't write MDX)
  • No accessibility addon (future need)
  • No Chromatic (visual regression)
  • Smaller community
  • Less examples online
  • Unknown issues (less battle-tested)

Is saving 24 seconds per day worth losing features? No.

When to Choose Ladle

Ladle is perfect for:

  1. Personal projects - Speed > features
  2. Simple libraries - Just need component preview
  3. No docs needed - Visual-only demos
  4. Vite-first teams - Minimal setup
  5. Prototypes - Fast iteration

I'd use Ladle for a side project or quick component exploration.

But for a production design system that needs documentation, Storybook is the right choice.

When to Choose Histoire

Histoire makes sense if:

  1. You use Vue - Built by Vue team
  2. You need speed + docs - Faster than Storybook, has docs mode
  3. Modern UI matters - Prettier than Storybook
  4. Small team - Don't need massive ecosystem

Histoire is the middle ground: faster than Storybook, more features than Ladle.

If I was building a Vue component library, I'd choose Histoire without hesitation.

For React in 2025? Storybook's ecosystem advantage is too big.

The Deployment Experience

My Storybook is deployed at ui.codecraft-labs.dev (or similar).

Deployment steps:

// vercel.json
{
  "buildCommand": "cd ../.. && pnpm install && pnpm --filter=@ccl/ui build-storybook",
  "outputDirectory": "storybook-static",
  "framework": null
}
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

That's it. Vercel deploys the static build automatically.

What You Get:

  • Fast loading: Static files on CDN
  • All components: Searchable, organized
  • Interactive: Try every variant live
  • Shareable: Send links to specific stories
  • Mobile-friendly: Responsive docs

Designers can bookmark specific stories and reference them in Figma.

The Bundle Size Reality

Storybook's node_modules footprint:

# Storybook dependencies
@storybook/react-vite: 12MB
@storybook/addon-docs: 8MB
@storybook/addon-links: 1MB
storybook: 45MB
# Total: ~66MB
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Ladle would be: ~5MB (13x smaller)

Does this matter? Not really:

  • CI caches node_modules (first run slow, then fast)
  • Local development has space
  • Final bundle is static HTML (same size)

The only pain point is initial clone + install taking 2-3 minutes instead of 30 seconds.

Acceptable tradeoff for features.

The Addon Ecosystem Advantage

Future needs I might have:

Accessibility Testing 

// .storybook/main.ts
addons: [
  '@storybook/addon-a11y', // WCAG compliance checks
]
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Built-in accessibility audits for every story. Catches contrast issues, missing labels, keyboard navigation problems.

Visual Regression Testing 

// Chromatic integration
// Catches unintended visual changes
pnpm chromatic --project-token=<token>
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Automatic screenshot comparison on every commit. Prevents bugs.

Design Tokens Display 

addons: [
  'storybook-addon-designs', // Show Figma designs
  'storybook-design-token', // Display design tokens
]
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

Ladle has none of this. You'd have to build it yourself.

What I'd Do Differently

If I started over:

I'd Still Choose Storybook, But:

  1. Use Ladle for prototyping - Quick component demos during development
  2. Migrate to Storybook for docs - When I need to share with team
  3. Enable only needed addons - Don't install everything
  4. Use CSF 3.0 from day one - Cleaner than CSF 2.0
  5. Set up Chromatic early - Visual regression from start

I Wouldn't:

  • ❌ Try to make Storybook faster (it's fast enough)
  • ❌ Fight the framework (use their patterns)
  • ❌ Over-document (not every story needs docs)
  • ❌ Install too many addons (keep it simple)

The Real Numbers

After 2 months with Storybook:

Stories created: 50+ across 11 components

Time to create story: ~5 minutes per variant

Build time: 25 seconds

Deploy frequency: 2-3 times per week

Team adoption: 100% (everyone uses it)

Designer feedback: "This is exactly what we needed"

Most important metric: 0 hours wasted explaining component APIs.

Instead of Slack messages like "how do I use the Button?", designers just look it up in Storybook.

The Controversial Take

Speed is overrated for component documentation.

A 6-second difference in cold start doesn't matter when you:

  • Cold-start 3-4 times per day
  • Spend 30+ minutes writing stories
  • Deploy once every few days
  • Share the result with dozens of people

What matters:

  • ✅ Can designers understand the components?
  • ✅ Can developers see all variants?
  • ✅ Is the documentation maintained?
  • ✅ Does it integrate with our workflow?

Storybook wins on all of these, even if it's slower.

My Recommendations By Use Case

Choose Storybook if:

  • Building a design system (documentation is critical)
  • Need accessibility testing (addon-a11y)
  • Want visual regression (Chromatic)
  • Have a team (sharing + collaboration)
  • Need MDX docs (write rich documentation)
  • Working with multiple frameworks (React, Vue, Angular support)

Choose Ladle if:

  • Personal project (solo developer)
  • Speed matters (iterate fast)
  • Simple preview (don't need docs)
  • Vite-first (minimal config)
  • Prototype quickly (throwaway code)

Choose Histoire if:

  • Using Vue (built for Vue)
  • Need speed + docs (middle ground)
  • Want modern UI (prettier than Storybook)
  • Small team (don't need huge ecosystem)

Don't Use Docusaurus for:

  • Interactive component demos (wrong tool)
  • Component playgrounds (no controls)
  • Design systems (static docs only)

The Bottom Line

For CodeCraft Labs: Storybook 10 with Vite was the right choice. The ecosystem, documentation features, and team adoption far outweigh the slower startup time.

For your project: If you're building a throwaway prototype or personal project, try Ladle. If you're building something that needs to last and be maintained by a team, use Storybook.

The best component documentation tool is the one that makes your team more productive. And for us, that's Storybook.

Resources

Documentation:

Learning:

Tools:

Related Posts:

Decision: Storybook 10 for production design system. The ecosystem and documentation features justify the slower startup. For quick prototypes, I'd use Ladle.

Top comments (0)