lodash vs es-toolkit

utility

lodash

es-toolkit

Lodash and es-toolkit are both JavaScript utility libraries that provide helper functions for common programming tasks like object manipulation, array operations, and data transformation. Lodash has been the industry standard since 2012, offering over 300 functions with battle-tested reliability across all JavaScript environments. es-toolkit is a modern alternative built with TypeScript that reimagines these utilities using contemporary JavaScript APIs, prioritizing performance and minimal bundle impact.

This comparison matters because utility libraries often constitute significant portions of JavaScript bundles—sometimes 100KB or more. For developers building modern web applications where every kilobyte affects load time, es-toolkit presents a compelling alternative. However, teams with established Lodash codebases or requirements for legacy browser support need to understand the trade-offs before migrating. Both libraries target developers who prefer battle-tested utilities over writing their own implementations, but they serve different priorities in the development lifecycle.

Head-to-Head

Bundle Size Impact→ es-toolkit wins

lodash

Individual functions range from 2-10KB due to internal dependencies. A single import often pulls 10+ related utilities automatically. Tree-shaking is limited because of deep interconnections between functions. Real-world impact: 100-145KB in typical projects.

es-toolkit

Functions are 88-200 bytes individually with minimal dependencies. Designed for aggressive tree-shaking from the ground up, with most functions standalone. Achieves 96-97% size reduction compared to Lodash equivalents. Real-world impact: 3-15KB in typical projects.

Runtime Performance→ es-toolkit wins

lodash

Adequate performance for most use cases but includes overhead from runtime type checking and compatibility layers. Optimized over years but constrained by backward compatibility requirements. Some functions like omit are measurably slower.

es-toolkit

Functions like omit are 11.8x faster due to modern API usage and TypeScript compile-time checking eliminating runtime overhead. Performance gains vary by function—some like groupBy show minimal differences. Leverages native browser APIs unavailable when Lodash was designed.

API Compatibility & Migration→ lodash wins

lodash

The original API that others emulate. Zero migration effort if already using Lodash. Extensive documentation and community knowledge. Hundreds of Stack Overflow answers for edge cases.

es-toolkit

Provides similar API plus a dedicated compat layer (es-toolkit/compat) for drop-in replacement. Migration can be gradual using the compatibility mode. Some edge cases and less common functions may not be available, requiring custom implementations or keeping Lodash for specific functions.

TypeScript Experience→ es-toolkit wins

lodash

Uses @types/lodash package maintained separately from core library. Type definitions can lag behind releases. Types are comprehensive but sometimes overly permissive, allowing unsafe patterns. Generic type inference works but isn't always optimal.

es-toolkit

Built-in TypeScript with first-class type support. Strong type annotations that catch errors at compile time. Includes useful type guards like isNotNil that narrow types correctly. Generic inference is more precise, reducing need for manual type assertions.

Function Coverage & Maturity→ lodash wins

lodash

Over 300 functions covering extensive use cases including obscure utilities. Handles numerous edge cases refined over a decade. Compatible with Node.js 0.10+ and ancient browsers. Mature ecosystem with plugins and extensions.

es-toolkit

Covers common Lodash functions but not the entire API surface. Some specialized utilities are missing. Relatively new (launched recently) with less production battle-testing. 100% test coverage but shorter track record for discovering edge cases.

Browser & Environment Support→ lodash wins

lodash

Supports ES5 environments including IE11 and below. Works in every JavaScript runtime without polyfills. Critical for projects requiring maximum compatibility. Can run in embedded JavaScript engines and legacy systems.

es-toolkit

Targets modern JavaScript (ES2015+) environments. Requires contemporary browsers or transpilation for legacy support. Optimized for environments where modern APIs are available. Not ideal for projects maintaining IE11 or older Node.js versions.

Verdict

Choose es-toolkit for new projects and modern applications where bundle size directly impacts user experience. The 95%+ reduction in bundle size and performance improvements make it the clear winner for client-side applications targeting current browsers. If you're building SPAs, PWAs, or any application where JavaScript bundle size affects Core Web Vitals, es-toolkit should be your default choice. The compatibility layer makes migration straightforward—you can switch incrementally and measure impact before fully committing.

Choose Lodash if you're maintaining existing applications with deep Lodash integration, require IE11 support, or need obscure utility functions not yet implemented in es-toolkit. The maturity and comprehensive API coverage matter when you can't afford gaps in functionality. For enterprise applications with long maintenance cycles or projects where bundle size is less critical than stability (Node.js backends, Electron apps with local deployment), Lodash remains the pragmatic choice. However, if you're starting fresh in 2024, you need a compelling reason to choose Lodash over es-toolkit—legacy browser support is increasingly the only valid one.

When to Use Each

If you are building a customer-facing web application where Lighthouse scores and load time directly impact conversion rates → use es-toolkit because the 100+KB bundle savings translates to measurably faster page loads and better Core Web Vitals scores.

If you are maintaining a large enterprise application originally built in 2018 with Lodash deeply integrated across 500+ files → use Lodash (or migrate gradually via es-toolkit/compat) because a wholesale rewrite introduces risk without proportional business value, though new modules should prefer es-toolkit.

If you are building a Node.js backend API where bundle size is irrelevant and you need maximum reliability with edge case handling → use Lodash because runtime performance differences are negligible in backend contexts and the mature ecosystem with comprehensive function coverage reduces implementation risk.

If you are creating a component library or npm package that others will consume → use es-toolkit because your library users will benefit from the smaller bundle footprint, and modern TypeScript support makes your package easier to integrate into TypeScript projects with better type safety.

Learn More

lodash →es-toolkit →

Head-to-Head

Bundle Size Impact→ es-toolkit wins

lodash

es-toolkit

Runtime Performance→ es-toolkit wins

lodash

es-toolkit

API Compatibility & Migration→ lodash wins

lodash

The original API that others emulate. Zero migration effort if already using Lodash. Extensive documentation and community knowledge. Hundreds of Stack Overflow answers for edge cases.

es-toolkit

TypeScript Experience→ es-toolkit wins

lodash

es-toolkit

Function Coverage & Maturity→ lodash wins

lodash

es-toolkit

Browser & Environment Support→ lodash wins

lodash

es-toolkit

Verdict

When to Use Each