mo · js vs Rough.js
Which should you use? A side-by-side look at what each one does, who it suits, what it costs, how hard it is to set up, and where each falls short.
Open source · MIT
A JavaScript library for building motion graphics and animations on web pages.
Open source · MIT
A small JavaScript library that draws shapes in a sketchy, hand-drawn style on Canvas or SVG.
The short answer
Choose mo · js if you need…
- Front-end developers who want decorative animated effects like bursts, shapes, or icon animations
- Developers who already use a bundler such as webpack or rollup and want to install via npm
- Designers working with a developer who wants more customizable motion on the web
- Teams who want to add small visual flourishes to a page without a large animation framework
Choose Rough.js if you need…
- Web developers who want a casual, hand-drawn look for diagrams or illustrations
- Developers building whiteboard-style or sketch-style interfaces
- People creating maps or charts that should look informal
- Projects that need a lightweight drawing library with no heavy dependencies noted in the README
Side-by-side
| mo · js | Rough.js | |
|---|---|---|
| Type | Library | Library |
| Price | Free and open source | Free and open source |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| GitHub stars | 18.9k | 21.3k |
| Setup difficulty | Intermediate | Intermediate |
| How you get it | Install with a package manager | Install with a package manager |
| Main language | CoffeeScript | HTML |
| Last code update | 3 months ago | 2 years ago |
What each one is
mo · js
mo·js is a JavaScript library for creating motion graphics on websites, such as animated shapes, bursts, and swirls. It uses a declarative API, meaning you describe the animation you want in configuration objects rather than writing each frame by hand. It is typically added to a site through npm or a CDN and is aimed at making visual effects that enhance the user experience.
Rough.js
Rough.js is a small JavaScript graphics library that makes lines, shapes, and paths look hand-drawn instead of perfectly computer-drawn. It works with both HTML Canvas and SVG, so it can be added to a web page to produce diagrams or illustrations with a sketchy look. The README describes it as under 9 kB in size.
Best for
mo · js
- Front-end developers who want decorative animated effects like bursts, shapes, or icon animations
- Developers who already use a bundler such as webpack or rollup and want to install via npm
- Designers working with a developer who wants more customizable motion on the web
- Teams who want to add small visual flourishes to a page without a large animation framework
Rough.js
- Web developers who want a casual, hand-drawn look for diagrams or illustrations
- Developers building whiteboard-style or sketch-style interfaces
- People creating maps or charts that should look informal
- Projects that need a lightweight drawing library with no heavy dependencies noted in the README
Strengths
mo · js
- The README describes a declarative API that gives fine control over animation.
- Ships with built-in components such as html, shape, swirl, burst, and stagger to start quickly.
- Installable via npm or a CDN, and the README notes support for bundler optimizations like tree shaking.
Rough.js
- Small library size, described as under 9 kB in the README
- Works with both Canvas and SVG output
- Simple API with examples for shapes, fills, and paths
Not ideal for
mo · js
- People who need a no-code tool, since mo·js requires writing JavaScript
- Projects that must support older or unlisted browsers, since the README lists minimum versions and says others are not extensively tested
- Developers looking for a general-purpose UI framework, since the README describes it as a motion library
Rough.js
- People who need precise, technical, or CAD-style drawings, since the output is intentionally rough
- Users who want a ready-made drawing app rather than a code library, since the README covers only the library API
- Non-programmers looking for a point-and-click tool
Trade-offs
mo · js
- The README lists specific browser minimums (for example Chrome 49+, Safari 8+) and says other browsers are not extensively tested.
- The README does not document its own learning curve; learning resources are largely external tutorials and a separate API documentation site.
- The project's primary language is CoffeeScript per repository metadata, which may matter if you plan to read or modify the source.
Rough.js
- The README is brief and points to an external wiki for full API documentation
- Output is deliberately imprecise, so it is unsuited to exact measurements
- The README shows no information on browser support or the maintenance pace beyond the last push date
Getting started
mo · js
Install with npm
npm install @mojs/coreInstall with yarn
yarn add @mojs/coreFrequently asked questions
What is the difference between mo · js and Rough.js?
mo · js: A JavaScript library for building motion graphics and animations on web pages. Rough.js: A small JavaScript library that draws shapes in a sketchy, hand-drawn style on Canvas or SVG. mo · js suits front-end developers who want decorative animated effects like bursts, shapes, or icon animations, while Rough.js suits web developers who want a casual, hand-drawn look for diagrams or illustrations.
Are mo · js and Rough.js free?
mo · js: Free and open source. Rough.js: Free and open source.
Is mo · js or Rough.js more popular?
Rough.js has more GitHub stars (21.3k) than mo · js (18.9k). Popularity isn't the same as fit — check which one matches your use case above.
What are other alternatives to mo · js and Rough.js?
Other options people compare them with include G2, Motion, Anime.js, Material, barba.js.
Keep comparing
Built from our catalogue entries for both products: open-source details come from each project's README (AI-assisted, refreshed weekly) and GitHub data; AI-tool details are editorial. Spotted something wrong? Let us know from either product's page.