// Compare

Three.js vs React Three Fiber — When to Pick Each

Vanilla Three.js for smaller bundles and simpler scenes; R3F for component-driven 3D in React apps.

Vanilla Three.js: imperative API, smaller bundle, fewer abstractions. React Three Fiber (R3F): declarative components, hot-reload friendly, integrates with React ecosystem. For simple hero scenes, vanilla Three.js wins on bundle size. For 3D within React apps where state management matters, R3F is much cleaner. For solo dev simple projects, vanilla is faster. For team projects in React, R3F is the right choice. Both render the same Three.js scene under the hood.

When option A wins

Pick the first option when the team prefers a stable mature ecosystem with a large community, when the project will run on production for 5+ years (long-term maintainability), and when the design constraints are well-understood before kickoff. The first option also wins for projects with a meaningful budget that can afford engineering depth.

When option B wins

Pick the second option when speed-to-prototype matters more than long-term maintenance, when the team includes a generalist rather than a 3D specialist, and when the visual ambition fits within the framework's built-in capabilities. The second option ships fast and rarely fights the tooling, which matters for marketing-driven launches.

My default choice

On most projects I default to the first option because clients tend to want the site to last 3-5 years without rewrites, and a mature ecosystem with strong tooling pays dividends throughout that lifespan. But I keep both in the toolbox — when a project's profile clearly favors the second, I switch. Tool-fit beats tool-loyalty.

Migration effort

Going from the second to the first option later (after the project is live) is non-trivial — a large share of the original build effort comes back. The opposite direction (first to second) is rarely needed. So the choice at kickoff is the more important decision, and I lay out the trade-offs in writing before any contract.

Frequently asked questions

Can I switch options later?

In one direction yes, in the other expensive. Going from a heavier tool to a lighter one is normal. Migrating from a lighter tool to a heavier one means rewriting most of the 3D layer — a large share of the original build effort.

Which tool do you personally use?

I use both, depending on the project. For long-term maintenance projects with rich features, I default to the more mature option. For fast prototypes and marketing campaigns, I default to the faster-to-ship option. Tool-fit beats tool-loyalty.

How long does this take?

Standard scope: 4-6 weeks from contract signature to live site. Larger scope (configurator, multi-scene scrollytelling) takes 8-12 weeks. Rush projects (2-3 weeks) are accepted with a 30-40% rush surcharge.

What does it cost?

Every project is quoted per scope — scene count, asset complexity and interactivity drive the effort. Send a short brief and you get a written fixed quote, with source code included.

What if my visitors are on weak phones?

The site detects device tier before the first scene loads and serves a lighter version on weak hardware (fewer particles, simpler shaders). Devices without WebGL get a static fallback that preserves the visual language and conversion path.

Ready to ship a 3D experience?

Tell me what you need — clear written scope, no surprises.

Get a quote +381 61 224 8989