Daniel Roe, the lead maintainer of Nuxt, posted a message in November 2024 that captured the sentiment perfectly: "The day of Vite has come." He was announcing that Nuxt would move to Vite as its sole default bundler, dropping Webpack support entirely. It was not a controversial decision. By that point, the migration felt overdue.
Vite started in 2020 as an experiment by Evan You, the creator of Vue.js. The premise was simple and, at the time, provocative: browsers now support ES modules natively, so why are we bundling every file during development? Why not just serve the source files directly and let the browser handle module resolution? The dev server would be essentially instant because there was nothing to bundle.
Six years later, Vite is the default build tool for Vue, Nuxt, SvelteKit, Astro, Remix (via Vite plugin), SolidStart, Qwik, and dozens of other frameworks. The npm download numbers tell the story: Vite averaged 18.3 million weekly downloads in January 2026, compared to Webpack's 28.1 million. But the Webpack number is misleading — a huge portion of those downloads come from existing projects and toolchains that depend on Webpack transitively. For new projects, Vite's dominance is near-total.
How Vite Won
Vite's victory was not inevitable. In 2020, Webpack had a decade of ecosystem investment, thousands of plugins, and the institutional weight of being the default for Create React App, Next.js, and Angular CLI. Beating that kind of entrenchment requires more than incremental improvement. It requires a paradigm shift.
Native ESM in Development
The fundamental insight was that development builds and production builds have different requirements. During development, you need speed — fast startup, fast hot module replacement (HMR), fast feedback loops. During production, you need optimization — code splitting, tree shaking, minification, asset hashing.
Webpack used the same approach for both: bundle everything. During development, it would parse your entire dependency graph, transform every module, and produce a bundle that the browser could load. For a project with 2,000 modules, this meant processing 2,000 files before you saw anything in the browser. As projects grew, dev server startup times stretched to 30, 60, even 90 seconds.
Vite split the problem. In development, it serves files as native ES modules over HTTP. When you import a file, the browser requests it, Vite transforms it on demand (using esbuild for TypeScript/JSX), and serves it. Only the files you actually request get processed. Dev server startup drops from 30 seconds to under 500 milliseconds, regardless of project size.
For production, Vite uses Rollup (and increasingly Rolldown, the Rust-based Rollup replacement) to produce optimized bundles. Same output quality as Webpack — code-split, tree-shaken, minified — but with a simpler configuration model.
Configuration Simplicity
Webpack configuration became a meme for a reason. A moderately complex Webpack setup could easily reach 200-300 lines across multiple config files, with loaders, plugins, resolve aliases, optimization settings, and dev server configuration all interleaved. The configuration was powerful — you could do almost anything — but the learning curve was brutal.
Vite took the opposite approach. A minimal vite.config.ts is often under 20 lines. Sensible defaults handle TypeScript, JSX, CSS modules, static assets, and environment variables without explicit configuration. Plugins follow a clean, well-documented API. And because the config file is a standard ES module, you can use TypeScript, top-level await, and any npm package directly in your configuration.
Here is a real-world Vite config for a React project with a few common needs:
import { defineConfig } from 'vite'
import react from '@vitejs/plugin-react'
import tsconfigPaths from 'vite-tsconfig-paths'
export default defineConfig({
plugins: [react(), tsconfigPaths()],
server: {
port: 3000,
proxy: {
'/api': 'http://localhost:8080'
}
},
build: {
sourcemap: true
}
})Twelve lines. The equivalent Webpack configuration for the same feature set would be 60-80 lines across webpack.config.js, babel.config.js, and potentially a separate dev server configuration.
Framework Adoption
The decisive factor was framework adoption. When SvelteKit chose Vite as its build layer in 2021, it was a signal. When Nuxt 3 shipped with Vite as default in 2022, it was a trend. When Remix migrated to Vite in 2024, it was a confirmation. When Astro, SolidStart, Qwik City, and Angular (via the experimental Vite-based dev server) all converged on Vite, it was over.
Framework authors chose Vite because it solved their problem without imposing its opinions. Vite provides a fast dev server, a production bundler, and an extensible plugin system. It does not dictate routing, rendering strategy, or state management. This makes it an ideal foundation layer — each framework can build its own abstractions on top of Vite's primitives.
Vitest: The Testing Piece
Testing has historically been a separate concern from building. You would configure Webpack for your build, and then separately configure Jest for your tests. Different transform pipelines, different module resolution, different configuration files. Incompatibilities between the two were common, especially with ESM modules, TypeScript path aliases, and CSS imports in test files.
Vitest eliminates this problem by sharing Vite's configuration and transform pipeline. Your tests use the same module resolution, the same TypeScript handling, the same path aliases, and the same plugin transformations as your application code. One configuration, two uses.
Vitest vs. Jest: A Practical Comparison
Jest has been the dominant JavaScript testing framework since approximately 2017. It is well-documented, widely supported, and deeply integrated into the ecosystem. Vitest does not replace Jest for every project, but for Vite-based projects, the advantages are substantial.
| Feature | Jest | Vitest |
|---|---|---|
| Configuration | Separate jest.config.js with its own transform pipeline | Shares vite.config.ts — no separate test config needed |
| TypeScript support | Requires ts-jest or @swc/jest transformer | Native via Vite's esbuild transform |
| ESM support | Experimental, requires --experimental-vm-modules flag | Native, no flags required |
| HMR in watch mode | Re-runs affected test files from scratch | Uses Vite's module graph for targeted re-runs |
| Speed (cold start) | 3-8 seconds for test suite initialization | 0.5-1.5 seconds |
| Speed (watch mode re-run) | 1-4 seconds per change | 50-300ms per change |
| API compatibility | N/A (the original) | Jest-compatible — describe, it, expect all work identically |
| Snapshot testing | Built-in | Built-in (Jest-compatible format) |
| Coverage | Via istanbul or c8 | Via v8 or istanbul (built-in) |
| In-source testing | Not supported | Supported (define tests next to source code) |
| Browser mode | Experimental via jest-environment-jsdom | Native browser mode via Playwright or WebDriverIO |
| Community size | Massive (600M+ weekly downloads) | Growing fast (12M+ weekly downloads) |
The API compatibility point is critical. Migrating from Jest to Vitest typically requires changing your config file and your import statements — from import { describe, it } from '@jest/globals' to import { describe, it } from 'vitest' (or using Vitest's auto-import globals). Your actual test logic, assertions, and mocks remain the same.
For our team, the watch mode speed is the feature that changed our workflow most. When a test re-runs in 100ms after saving a file instead of 3 seconds, you stay in a continuous feedback loop. You write a line, save, see the result. Write another line, save, see the result. It is qualitatively different from waiting 3 seconds, losing your train of thought, checking Slack, and then trying to remember what you were testing.
The Unified Toolchain
The modern JavaScript toolchain in 2026, for most projects, looks like this:
Build and Dev Server: Vite. It handles development serving, production bundling, asset processing, and environment management.
Testing: Vitest. Shares Vite's configuration, transforms, and module resolution. Runs unit tests, integration tests, and component tests.
Linting: ESLint with flat config (eslint.config.js). The old .eslintrc format is deprecated. Biome is gaining traction as an all-in-one linter and formatter, but ESLint's ecosystem is still larger.
Formatting: Prettier, or increasingly Biome for teams that want a single tool for linting and formatting.
Type-checking: TypeScript compiler (heading toward the Go-based version in TypeScript 7.0).
The key characteristic of this stack is reduced surface area. Five years ago, a JavaScript project might have had separate configurations for Webpack, Babel, Jest, ESLint, Prettier, and TypeScript — six different config files with six different mental models. The modern stack collapses build and test into a shared Vite config, and the remaining tools are simpler to configure individually.
Migrating from Webpack to Vite
The migration is simpler than most teams expect, with one important caveat: the difficulty depends on how much Webpack-specific behavior your project relies on.
A React project using Create React App (or a custom Webpack config with standard loaders for TypeScript, CSS, and static assets) can typically migrate in a day. The process is: install Vite and @vitejs/plugin-react, create a vite.config.ts, move your index.html to the project root, update your build scripts in package.json, and delete the Webpack configuration.
The complications arise from Webpack-specific features. If you use Webpack's require.context for dynamic imports, you need to replace it with Vite's import.meta.glob. If you use Webpack-specific environment variable conventions (process.env.REACT_APP_*), you need to switch to Vite's import.meta.env.VITE_* convention. If you have custom Webpack loaders for unusual file types, you need equivalent Vite plugins (most exist, some do not).
The biggest migration blocker we have encountered in client projects is not technical — it is organizational. Large teams with established CI/CD pipelines, shared Webpack configurations published as internal npm packages, and years of accumulated Webpack knowledge are reluctant to migrate because the cost is clear and the benefit feels abstract. Our advice: pick one smaller service or internal tool, migrate it, measure the developer experience improvement, and let that build the case for broader adoption.
What About Turbopack?
Turbopack is Vercel's Rust-based bundler, originally announced in October 2022 as the successor to Webpack. It is built by some of the same engineers who created Webpack, including Tobias Koppers (Webpack's creator).
An honest assessment of where it stands in early 2026: Turbopack is mature for Next.js development mode. It powers next dev --turbo and provides fast dev server startup and HMR for Next.js projects. For that specific use case, it works well.
Outside Next.js, adoption is minimal. Turbopack does not have a standalone build tool story comparable to Vite. It does not have a production bundler mode that is broadly available. It does not have an ecosystem of third-party plugins. It is, at this stage, a Next.js-specific optimization rather than a general-purpose build tool.
| Dimension | Webpack 5 | Vite 6 | Turbopack (via Next.js) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dev server cold start (medium project) | 8-15 seconds | 300-800ms | 500ms-2s |
| HMR update speed | 200-1000ms | 20-100ms | 30-150ms |
| Production build time | Baseline | 20-40% faster | Not available standalone |
| Configuration complexity | High (100-300 line configs common) | Low (10-30 lines typical) | Minimal (managed by Next.js) |
| Plugin ecosystem | Massive (50,000+ packages reference Webpack) | Large and growing (2,000+ Vite plugins) | Next.js-internal only |
| Framework support | Universal (but declining as default) | Vue, Svelte, React, Astro, Remix, Solid, Qwik | Next.js only |
| Standalone usage | Yes | Yes | No (Next.js-coupled) |
Turbopack may eventually become a general-purpose tool, but that is a future bet, not a current reality. For teams choosing a build tool today, Vite is the safe, proven, ecosystem-supported choice.
Why Meta-Frameworks Standardized on Vite
There is a deeper reason why every major meta-framework converged on Vite, and it goes beyond performance. Meta-frameworks — Next.js, Nuxt, SvelteKit, Remix, Astro — are in the business of providing an integrated developer experience. They handle routing, rendering, data loading, and deployment. The build tool is infrastructure, not a feature.
Vite's architecture as a framework-agnostic build layer fits this model perfectly. It provides the primitives — fast dev serving, module transformation, production bundling — without imposing framework-specific opinions. Each meta-framework can customize Vite's behavior through plugins while keeping the core build pipeline standard.
The alternative — each framework building its own bundler — means duplicated effort, divergent behavior, and ecosystem fragmentation. Nuxt and SvelteKit sharing Vite means that a Vite plugin for image optimization works in both frameworks. A Vite configuration pattern documented for one framework applies to another. The shared foundation creates compounding ecosystem value.
This is why even frameworks that initially resisted Vite eventually adopted it. The network effect of a shared build layer is too strong to compete against with a bespoke solution. The only exception is Next.js, which has Vercel's resources to invest in Turbopack. Every other framework chose to build on Vite rather than compete with it.
Practical Recommendations
For new projects in 2026, Vite is the default choice. There is no technical argument for starting a new project with Webpack unless you have a very specific requirement that only a Webpack loader or plugin can fulfill, and even then, check if a Vite equivalent exists first.
For existing Webpack projects, the migration decision depends on pain. If your dev server starts in 2 seconds and HMR is fast, the migration has limited upside. If your dev server takes 20 seconds and HMR occasionally fails, the migration will improve your daily development experience measurably. Prioritize based on developer experience impact, not principle.
For testing, if you are starting a new test suite, use Vitest. If you have an existing Jest suite that works well, the migration is low-risk but also low-urgency — Jest is not going anywhere, and the compatibility is high enough that you can migrate incrementally, one test file at a time.
The JavaScript tooling ecosystem spent the last decade in a state of constant churn — new bundlers, new test runners, new linters appearing every year. Vite's dominance represents something rare: convergence. For the first time in years, the community has broadly agreed on a build tool. That stability has real value. We can spend our time building products instead of debating configuration.
CODERCOPS builds production applications on the modern Vite + Vitest + TypeScript stack. If you are starting a new project or migrating from a legacy toolchain, our team can help you move quickly with a setup that scales.
Comments