head to head · open source

three.js vs zinx

three.js has 115,636 GitHub stars, 36,557 forks, 386 open issues and last shipped yesterday. zinx has 7,764 stars, 1,262 forks, 96 open issues and last shipped 4 months ago. three.js leads on adoption by 1,389% (115,636 vs 7,764 stars). three.js is written in JavaScript under MIT; zinx is written in Go under MIT. three.js has attracted 32% as many forks as stars, zinx 16%. three.js was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee.

Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.

three.js ★ 116K zinx ★ 7.8K category Miscellaneous

← all 15422 open source comparisons

Side by side

three.js zinx
GitHub stars ★ 116K ★ 7.8K
License MIT MIT
Written in JavaScript Go
Last push 2026-09-18 2026-06-06
Forks ⑂ 37K ⑂ 1.3K
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick three.js if

  • You weight community size — 116K stars and counting
  • You want the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches JavaScript
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full three.js profile →

pick zinx if

  • You want the zinx feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches Go
  • You evaluated both and zinx fits your workflow better

full zinx profile →

About three.js

three.js is an MIT licensed JavaScript 3D library that provides an easy to use, lightweight, cross browser, general purpose layer for rendering interactive 3D graphics in the browser, aimed at JavaScript developers who need 3D scenes on the web without writing raw GPU code.

read the full three.js overview →

About zinx

Zinx is a lightweight concurrent server framework written in Go, aimed at developers who want a small, readable TCP server skeleton they can study and customise rather than adopt a large opaque application framework.

read the full zinx overview →

More in Miscellaneous

firecrawl ★ 182K Godot ★ 117K ant-design ★ 100K open-design ★ 97K manim ★ 94K Home Assistant ★ 91K

Related comparisons

firecrawl vs godot firecrawl vs gdevelop godot vs home-assistant firecrawl vs monogame firecrawl vs sbox godot vs gdevelop godot vs monogame godot vs sbox firecrawl vs home-assistant firecrawl vs cratedb firecrawl vs gladys-assistant home-assistant vs opencut godot vs cratedb godot vs gladys-assistant home-assistant vs cratedb opencut vs cratedb firecrawl vs crawl4ai firecrawl vs novu firecrawl vs searxng firecrawl vs postiz firecrawl vs cap firecrawl vs openseo firecrawl vs keploy firecrawl vs parlant

More Gaming projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the Gaming field.

three.js vs Godot three.js vs imgui three.js vs bevy three.js vs raylib three.js vs GDevelop three.js vs MonoGame three.js vs Pumpkin three.js vs azerothcore-wotlk three.js vs s&box three.js vs pokerth

Frequently asked questions

Is three.js or zinx more popular?

three.js has 115,636 GitHub stars and zinx has 7,764. three.js has the larger community by that measure.

Are three.js and zinx free?

Both are open source. three.js is licensed under MIT and zinx under MIT. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between three.js and zinx?

three.js is written in JavaScript and zinx in Go. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, three.js or zinx?

Choose three.js if you want the larger community (115,636 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose zinx if its feature set, stack or MIT licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.