Home / Technologies / Socket.IO vs vanilla-lazyload
Socket.IO vs vanilla-lazyload: who uses which
vanilla-lazyload is on more sites: 44,884 against 11,013 for Socket.IO, about 4.1 times as many. Here's how they compare across the websites we've indexed, and where each one does best.
Where each one is used
| Domain | Socket.IO | vanilla-lazyload |
|---|---|---|
| .com on .com | 4,748 | 20,712 |
| .ru on .ru | 285 | 3,400 |
| .net on .net | 558 | 954 |
| .org on .org | 376 | 986 |
| .br in Brazil | 740 | 303 |
| .uk in the UK | 68 | 957 |
| .de in Germany | 137 | 885 |
| .nl in the Netherlands | 46 | 841 |
174 sites run both at once.
Questions
Which is more popular, Socket.IO or vanilla-lazyload?
vanilla-lazyload is on more sites: 44,884 against 11,013 for Socket.IO, about 4.1 times as many, across the sites StackGrep has indexed.
Do sites use Socket.IO and vanilla-lazyload together?
174 sites load both. That's often a switch in progress, or two teams picking different tools.
Want the whole list?
Sign up to download every site using Socket.IO or vanilla-lazyload as a spreadsheet and see new ones as they appear. 200 free credits to start. No card needed.