How I Evaluate Component Libraries for Production-Grade Frontends
Component libraries are one of the fastest ways to build modern user interfaces.
They can also be one of the fastest ways to lose control of your UI.
Over the last few projects—personal and client-facing—I've explored and used multiple component libraries, including Aceternity UI, React Bits, and utility-first systems like shadcn/ui. This article is not a list of "best libraries."
Instead, it's about how I evaluate component libraries, what I use them for, and—more importantly—when I deliberately avoid them.
Why Component Libraries Exist (And Why They're Tempting)
Component libraries solve real problems:
- ✓Speed of development
- ✓Visual consistency
- ✓Reduced design effort
- ✓Pre-built interactions and animations
For demos, MVPs, and early-stage products, this is incredibly attractive.
But production frontends are not demos.
They live longer, scale unpredictably, and are touched by multiple engineers. That's where judgment matters more than features.
The First Question I Ask: What Problem Is This Library Solving?
Before evaluating APIs or visuals, I ask:
Is this solving a design problem or a product problem?
Is it accelerating development, or just adding visual flair?
Will this reduce or increase long-term maintenance?
If the answer is "it looks cool," that's not enough.
My Core Evaluation Criteria
1. Customizability Over Aesthetics
A visually impressive component that cannot be adapted is a liability.
I look for:
- • Style overrides without hacks
- • Predictable class or token structure
- • Ability to align with my own spacing, colors, and typography
Libraries that lock you into their design language are fine for showcases—but risky for products.
2. Accessibility Defaults
I don't want to retrofit accessibility.
I check:
- • Keyboard navigation
- • Focus management
- • ARIA usage
- • Sensible default semantics
A library that ignores accessibility creates invisible technical debt.
3. Styling Strategy
How a library handles styling tells me how painful it will be later.
I prefer:
- • Utility-first or token-based approaches
- • No hardcoded styles
- • Clear separation between structure and appearance
Overly abstracted styling systems are a red flag.
4. Performance Cost
Every component comes with:
- • JavaScript cost
- • CSS cost
- • Rendering complexity
For animated libraries especially, I'm cautious. A beautiful component that drops frames under load is not production-ready.
5. Maintenance & Ecosystem
I check:
- • Update frequency
- • Issue discussions
- • Community clarity
An abandoned library is worse than no library.
Aceternity UI: Where It Shines, Where It Doesn't
Aceternity UI is visually striking. Its components are excellent for:
• Landing pages
• Portfolio sections
• Marketing-heavy experiences
• Motion-driven hero sections
Where it works well:
- ✓ Rapid visual impact
- ✓ Pre-built motion patterns
- ✓ Inspiration for interaction design
Where I'm cautious:
- ⚠ Heavy animations everywhere
- ⚠ Tight coupling between motion and layout
- ⚠ Not ideal for dense, data-heavy interfaces
How I use it:
- • As a reference or selective import
- • Never as a full system foundation
- • Often as inspiration rather than direct usage
React Bits: Lightweight, Focused, Practical
React Bits is interesting because it focuses on:
- →Small, composable UI pieces
- →Less opinionated design
- →Easier integration into existing systems
Where it works well:
- • Utility components
- • Enhancing existing UIs
- • Controlled use in product interfaces
Where it needs judgment:
- • Visual cohesion
- • Consistency across pages
- • Avoiding patchwork UI
I treat React Bits as helpers, not building blocks.
shadcn/ui and System-First Libraries
Libraries like shadcn/ui stand out because they:
Encourage ownership
Are copy-based, not dependency-locked
Fit well into design-system thinking
These align well with how I like to work:
- ✓Components are starting points
- ✓Customization is expected
- ✓The system evolves with the product
For production-grade applications, this approach scales far better.
Integrating Libraries Into a Custom UI System
This is where many projects fail.
My approach:
Never mix raw library styles directly
Wrap third-party components in local abstractions
Normalize spacing, colors, and motion
Control animation timing centrally
Libraries should serve your system, not define it.
When I Don't Use a Component Library at All
There are cases where I intentionally avoid libraries:
Real-time interfaces (e.g., calls, chat)
Performance-critical views
Highly branded products
Complex state-driven interactions
In these cases:
- ✓ Custom components are simpler
- ✓ Debugging is easier
- ✓ Performance is predictable
This was especially true while building Medivue, where clarity and stability mattered more than visual flair.
Component Libraries Are Tools, Not Architecture
The biggest mistake I see is treating a library as the UI architecture.
Libraries help you move faster.
They don't make decisions for you.
Good frontend engineering is about:
- →Choosing trade-offs consciously
- →Knowing when to adopt
- →Knowing when to step back
Closing Thought
Using component libraries well is less about knowing which ones exist and more about knowing why and when to use them.
Taste, restraint, and system thinking matter more than any single tool.
That's the mindset I bring to every UI decision—whether I'm using a library, adapting one, or building from scratch.
Why This Belongs in My Portfolio
This perspective connects directly to:
UI engineering maturity
Design-system thinking
Real-world product constraints
Long-term maintainability
It reflects how I work—not just what I can build.