Three.js vs Babylon.js vs PlayCanvas: Which 3D Library Should You Choose in 2026?

You're building a 3D web application—maybe a product configurator, a data visualization dashboard, an interactive brand experience, or a browser-based game. But which library should power it?

Three.js, Babylon.js, and PlayCanvas are the three leading options for 3D on the web. They all render triangles to screens. They all support WebGL and WebGPU. But they serve different purposes, fit different teams, and lead to different long-term outcomes.

This guide helps you understand the real differences, compare ecosystems and capabilities, and decide which approach fits your project, team, and business goals.

Who this is for: Technical leads and CTOs evaluating 3D libraries for web projects, development teams choosing their stack, and decision-makers who need to understand the trade-offs.

Key Takeaways

• Three.js dominates the ecosystem with 4.2 million weekly downloads—300x more than Babylon.js or PlayCanvas. The network effects are massive.
• Babylon.js is a full game engine with built-in physics, audio, and XR support. Choose it when you need batteries included.
• PlayCanvas offers a cloud-based visual editor—ideal for teams with non-technical members or rapid prototyping needs.
• All three support WebGPU, but Three.js made it seamless with zero-config imports in r171 (September 2025).
• The decision depends on: project type, team skills, React usage, and long-term maintenance strategy.

1. Quick Comparison: Three.js vs Babylon.js vs PlayCanvas

2. What Each Library Actually Is

2-1. Three.js: The Rendering Foundation

Three.js is a low-level 3D rendering library. It gives you a scene graph, cameras, lights, materials, and a renderer—then gets out of your way.

What it includes:

• Scene graph and object hierarchy
• Multiple material types (Standard, Physical, Toon, etc.)
• Post-processing effects pipeline
• GLTF/GLB model loading
• Animation system
• WebGPU and WebGL 2 renderers

What it doesn't include:

• Physics engine
• Audio system
• Game loop
• Built-in UI
• Entity-component system

This minimalism is intentional. Three.js provides the rendering layer; you build (or add) everything else. The ecosystem fills the gaps: React Three Fiber for React integration, Rapier or Cannon for physics, Drei for common abstractions.

Best for: Teams that want full control, React-based applications, creative/experimental projects, data visualization.

2-2. Babylon.js: The Complete Game Engine

Babylon.js is a full-featured game engine that happens to run in the browser. Microsoft backs it, and the philosophy is "batteries included."

What it includes:

• Everything Three.js has, plus:
• Multiple physics engine options (Havok, Cannon, Oimo)
• Full audio system
• Native XR support (VR, AR, WebXR)
• Particle system
• GUI system
• Node Material Editor (visual shader creation)
• Playground (online IDE)
• Animation state machines
• Collision detection

Key difference: Babylon.js ships what game developers need out of the box. You don't assemble pieces—you configure features.

Best for: Browser games, VR/AR experiences, complex simulations, teams that prefer integrated solutions.

2-3. PlayCanvas: The Cloud-First Engine

PlayCanvas is a cloud-based game engine with a visual editor that lives in your browser.

What it includes:

• Full 3D rendering engine
• Cloud-based visual editor
• Real-time collaboration
• Built-in physics (Ammo.js)
• Asset pipeline and CDN hosting
• Mobile optimization out of the box
• Entity-component system

Key difference: PlayCanvas targets teams, not solo developers. The editor lets designers, artists, and developers collaborate in real-time—like Figma for 3D.

Best for: Game studios, teams with non-technical members, rapid prototyping, mobile game deployment.

3. When to Choose Each

3-1. Choose Three.js If...

• You're using React. React Three Fiber is the industry standard for declarative 3D in React. Nothing else comes close.
• You need maximum flexibility. Three.js doesn't impose architecture decisions. Build what you want, how you want.
• Community support matters. 4.2M weekly downloads means every problem has been solved before. Stack Overflow, Discord, tutorials—everything exists.
• You're building creative experiences. Brand websites, data visualization, art installations, experimental projects.
• Bundle size matters. At ~168 kB gzipped, Three.js is significantly lighter than Babylon.js.
• You want WebGPU performance. Three.js r171+ made WebGPU production-ready with zero configuration.

3-2. Choose Babylon.js If...

• You're building a game. Babylon.js includes everything: physics, audio, particles, collision, animation states.
• XR is core to your project. Babylon.js has the most comprehensive WebXR support.
• You want an integrated solution. If assembling libraries sounds tedious, Babylon.js ships complete.
• Microsoft ecosystem alignment matters. Enterprise contexts where Microsoft backing provides confidence.
• You prefer a playground. The online Babylon.js Playground lets you prototype without local setup.
• You need visual shader creation. The Node Material Editor is powerful for non-programmers creating custom materials.

3-3. Choose PlayCanvas If...

• Your team includes non-developers. The visual editor lets designers and artists work directly.
• Real-time collaboration matters. Multiple people editing the same project simultaneously.
• You're targeting mobile. PlayCanvas is optimized for mobile performance out of the box.
• Rapid prototyping is the goal. Get something running faster than code-first alternatives.
• You want hosted infrastructure. PlayCanvas handles asset hosting, CDN, and deployment.

4. Ecosystem Comparison

4-1. Community and Support

Three.js's ecosystem advantage is self-reinforcing. More developers means more tutorials, more answered questions, more open-source tools—which attracts more developers.

4-2. Framework Integration

Three.js + React = React Three Fiber

React Three Fiber (R3F) is a React renderer for Three.js. It lets you write Three.js code as JSX components:

<Canvas>
  <mesh position={[0, 0, 0]}>
    <boxGeometry />
    <meshStandardMaterial color="orange" />
  </mesh>
</Canvas>

R3F has its own ecosystem: Drei (helpers), React Three Postprocessing, Rapier physics integration. For React shops, this is the clear winner.

AI-Assisted Development: Three.js is also the library of choice for "vibe coding"—using AI to generate 3D code. Tools like Three.js Blocks are designed specifically with AI copilots in mind, featuring clear APIs and llms.txt support so LLMs can wire things up correctly. If your team uses Claude, Cursor, or other AI coding assistants, Three.js's ecosystem is best optimized for that workflow.

Babylon.js + React

React wrappers exist (react-babylonjs), but they're less mature and less widely adopted. If you're committed to React, Three.js + R3F is the smoother path.

PlayCanvas

PlayCanvas follows its own paradigm (entity-component in the cloud editor). It doesn't integrate with React or Vue in the same way—you use PlayCanvas as the primary framework.

4-3. Job Market and Hiring

Three.js skills are the most in-demand for web 3D roles. Job listings for "Three.js developer" significantly outnumber those for Babylon.js or PlayCanvas.

This matters for:

• Hiring: Larger talent pool for Three.js
• Career development: Three.js experience transfers to more opportunities
• Team continuity: Easier to find replacements or additions

5. Technical Deep-Dive

5-1. WebGPU Support

All three libraries support WebGPU, but implementation maturity differs.

Three.js:

• WebGPU production-ready since r171 (September 2025)
• Zero-config imports: import { WebGPURenderer } from 'three/webgpu'
• Automatic fallback to WebGL 2 on older browsers
• Native WGSL shader support

Babylon.js:

• WebGPU support since 5.0 (May 2022)
• Babylon.js 8.0 (March 2025) added native WGSL shaders
• Previously required a 3MB+ conversion layer
• Now ships GLSL and WGSL side-by-side

PlayCanvas:

• WebGPU support available
• Transparent to users of the cloud editor

For new projects targeting WebGPU, all three are viable. Three.js has the most streamlined developer experience.

5-2. Performance Characteristics

Draw call performance: Babylon.js's benchmarks show strong performance in WebGPU tasks. Three.js with WebGPURenderer can achieve 10x improvements in particle-heavy scenes.

Bundle size impact:

• Three.js: ~168 kB (core)
• Babylon.js: ~1.4 MB (everything)
• PlayCanvas: ~300 kB (runtime)

For performance-sensitive applications, Three.js's smaller footprint means faster initial load.

Mobile performance: PlayCanvas is specifically optimized for mobile—texture compression (ASTC on mobile, DXT on desktop), garbage collection tuning, automatic format selection. Three.js and Babylon.js require more manual optimization for mobile.

5-3. Physics Integration

Three.js: No built-in physics. Common choices:

• Rapier (Rust-based, WASM, modern choice)
• Cannon-es (JavaScript, mature)

Babylon.js: Multiple built-in options:

• Havok (commercial-grade, now free for web)
• Cannon.js, Oimo.js (lighter alternatives)

PlayCanvas: Built-in Ammo.js integration, visual configuration in editor.

6. Real-World Use Cases

6-1. Brand Websites and Marketing

Winner: Three.js

The ecosystem around Three.js—particularly React Three Fiber—makes it the default for web agencies and creative studios. Award-winning sites (Awwwards, FWA) overwhelmingly use Three.js.

Examples: Product configurators, immersive brand experiences, interactive landing pages.

6-2. Product Configurators

Winner: Three.js

The flexibility to integrate with any e-commerce stack, combined with React Three Fiber's component model, makes Three.js dominant here.

6-3. Browser-Based Games

Winner: Babylon.js or PlayCanvas

Both ship what game developers need: physics, audio, particles, collision. Three.js requires assembling these pieces manually.

• Babylon.js for complex games with XR potential
• PlayCanvas for mobile-first games or team collaboration

6-4. Data Visualization

Winner: Three.js

The compute shader capabilities in WebGPU Three.js, combined with flexibility for custom rendering, make it ideal for visualizing millions of data points. Our work with Segments.ai achieved 100x performance improvement for million-point LiDAR datasets using Three.js + WebGPU.

6-5. VR/AR (WebXR)

Winner: Babylon.js

Babylon.js has the most comprehensive, battle-tested WebXR implementation. If XR is central to your project, Babylon.js reduces friction significantly.

6-6. Interactive Installations

Winner: Three.js

For physical installations (museums, retail, events), Three.js's flexibility and ecosystem depth make it the standard. Our Hokusai installation at Expo 2025 Osaka used Three.js + WebGPU to render 1 million particles in real-time.

7. The Numbers Don't Lie

Three.js has ~300x more weekly downloads than either competitor. This gap has widened over time, not narrowed.

What this means:

• Hiring: Larger talent pool
• Support: Every problem has been solved before
• Ecosystem: More tools, integrations, and resources
• Longevity: Three.js isn't going anywhere

8. Common Mistakes to Avoid

8-1. Choosing Babylon.js Then Fighting the Framework

Babylon.js has opinions. If you constantly fight those opinions—wanting different physics, different patterns, different architecture—you'll spend more time overriding than building. In that case, Three.js's blank slate serves you better.

8-2. Underestimating Three.js's Learning Curve

Three.js is "low-level" for web 3D. You need to understand scenes, cameras, materials, geometries, and rendering loops. If your team lacks 3D graphics experience, budget for learning time—or consider Babylon.js's more guided approach.

8-3. Ignoring the WebGPU Future

All new projects should target WebGPU with WebGL fallback. The performance gains (especially for compute-heavy applications) are substantial, and browser support is now universal since Safari 26 (September 2025).

8-4. Picking Based on Benchmarks Alone

Synthetic benchmarks rarely predict real-world performance in your specific application. Architecture decisions (state management, data flow, rendering strategy) matter more than which library draws triangles 5% faster.

8-5. Forgetting About the Team

The best technical choice that your team can't hire for or maintain is the wrong choice. Three.js's massive talent pool and ecosystem often outweigh theoretical advantages of alternatives.

9. Decision Framework

Start here:

1. Are you using React?

   • Yes → Three.js (React Three Fiber)
   • No → Continue

2. Is this a game with physics/audio/XR?

   • Yes → Babylon.js (batteries included)
   • No → Continue

3. Does your team need a visual editor?

   • Yes → PlayCanvas (cloud collaboration)
   • No → Continue

4. Is maximum flexibility important?

   • Yes → Three.js
   • No → Choose based on team familiarity

10. About Utsubo

Utsubo is a creative studio specializing in Three.js development, interactive installations, and immersive web experiences.

We've built experiences with millions of particles, deployed installations at Expo 2025 Osaka, and helped platforms like Segments.ai achieve 100x performance improvements through WebGPU migration.

We're technology-agnostic in our recommendations—we've worked with all three libraries. But when asked what we use most? Three.js, because the ecosystem, community, and flexibility consistently deliver for the projects we build.

11. Let's Talk

Building something ambitious with 3D on the web? We work with teams on interactive experiences, product configurators, and immersive brand projects.

If you're exploring a partnership, let's discuss your project:

• What you're building and the constraints you're working with
• Which technical approach makes sense for your goals
• Whether we're the right fit to help you execute

Book a project discussion

Prefer email? Contact us at: contact@utsubo.co

12. Decision-Maker Checklist

• We've identified our primary use case (creative web, game, visualization, XR)
• We've assessed our team's 3D experience and learning capacity
• We've checked if React integration is a requirement
• We've considered bundle size implications for our audience
• We've evaluated long-term maintenance and hiring implications
• We've tested prototype performance on target devices
• We've confirmed WebGPU support is part of our strategy
• We've reviewed ecosystem tools we'll need (physics, animation, etc.)

Sources & References

• NPM Trends: Three.js vs Babylon.js vs PlayCanvas
• Three.js GitHub Repository
• Babylon.js GitHub Repository
• PlayCanvas GitHub Repository
• Babylon.js WebGPU Documentation
• Babylon.js 8.0 Announcement

FAQs

Is Three.js harder to learn than Babylon.js?

Three.js has a steeper initial learning curve because it's lower-level—you need to understand 3D graphics concepts (scenes, cameras, materials, render loops) before building. Babylon.js abstracts more, which makes simple things easier but can make custom things harder. For developers new to 3D, Babylon.js's playground and integrated approach may feel more accessible. For experienced developers, Three.js's flexibility is usually preferred.

Can I use Three.js for games?

Yes, but you'll assemble the pieces yourself. Three.js handles rendering; you add physics (Rapier, Cannon), audio (Howler.js or Web Audio API), and game loop architecture. For simple games, this works well. For complex games with physics-heavy gameplay, Babylon.js's integrated approach saves time.

Which library has the best performance?

It depends on the workload. Babylon.js benchmarks well in certain WebGPU tasks. Three.js excels in particle systems and custom shader performance. PlayCanvas is optimized for mobile. In practice, your architecture decisions (state management, culling, LOD) matter more than library choice for most applications.

Should I migrate from WebGL to WebGPU?

For new projects: yes, start with WebGPU (with WebGL fallback). For existing projects: only if you're hitting performance limits. WebGPU delivers 2-10x improvements in draw-call-heavy and compute-heavy scenarios. All three libraries support automatic fallback, so there's no risk in targeting WebGPU first.

What about Unity or Unreal WebGL exports?

Unity and Unreal can export to WebGL, but the results are typically large (10-50MB+), slow to load, and don't integrate well with web ecosystems. For web-first experiences, native web 3D libraries (Three.js, Babylon.js, PlayCanvas) deliver better performance, smaller bundles, and tighter integration with web standards.

Which library will be around in 10 years?

Three.js has the strongest position: 14+ years of active development, massive community, continuous updates, and no corporate dependency risk. Babylon.js is Microsoft-backed (stable but corporate priorities can shift). PlayCanvas is Snap-backed (similar consideration). For long-term projects, Three.js's community-driven model provides the most confidence.