NPM vs Yarn vs PNPM: JavaScript Package Manager Showdown

Are you confused about which JavaScript package manager to use in your next project? NPM, Yarn, and PNPM are the most popular options, but each has its own strengths and weaknesses.

In this comprehensive guide, we'll walk through hands-on examples to demonstrate the key differences between these three package managers. By the end, you'll know which one is best for your needs!

A Quick Intro to NPM, Yarn, and PNPM

A Brief History of JavaScript Package Managers

In the beginning, JavaScript packages were managed ad hoc without a centralized system. But as Node.js grew in popularity, the need emerged for an official package manager.

Thus NPM was born as the package manager bundled with Node.js. It allowed easily installing and sharing JavaScript modules through its public registry. Over the years, NPM served the JavaScript community well and helped the ecosystem thrive.

But as projects grew more complex, NPM started showing its weaknesses. Projects using NPM had security vulnerabilities from problematic packages. Performance was also an issue as installing dependencies became slow.

Seeing these shortcomings, Facebook developed Yarn as an alternative focused on security and speed. Yarn introduced improvements like a lockfile for consistency, offline mode, and parallel installing.

For a time, Yarn was the darling of JavaScript developers. But with NPM 5 and 6, NPM caught up by integrating similar features like lockfiles and auditing.

Just as NPM matched pace with Yarn, an unlikely contender emerged to challenge them both - PNPM. It promised even faster performance through a new linking strategy. PNPM also fixed nagging issues like disk space bloat.

Now Yarn and NPM are both racing to close the gap with PNPM's advancements. They recently incorporated Plug’n’Play and other innovations pioneered by PNPM.

The healthy competition between NPM, Yarn, and PNPM has tremendously improved JavaScript package management. Thanks to their rivalry, we now have performant and secure dependency management!

The story continues as they battle to become the package manager of the future...

Now let's examine how NPM, Yarn, and PNPM compare today!

Quick Overview

First, a quick overview of what exactly these tools are:

NPM: Stands for Node Package Manager. It's the default package manager that comes bundled with Node.js. NPM has been around the longest.

Yarn: Developed by Facebook, Yarn was created as an alternative to NPM to resolve some of NPM's limitations around security and performance.

PNPM: Stands for Performant NPM. It's the newest kid on the block and aims to combine the best of NPM and Yarn while improving performance and disk usage.

Now let's dive into the details...

Performance Benchmarks

One of the biggest differences between these package managers is speed. Let's test them out with a simple project to see which installs dependencies the fastest:

// package.json

{
  "name": "performance-test",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "main": "index.js",
  "license": "MIT",
  "dependencies": {
    "lodash": "^4.17.21"
  }
}

First, we'll initialize the project:

npm init -y

Then install lodash with each package manager:

// NPM
npm install

// Yarn 
yarn

// PNPM
pnpm install

On my machine, here are the results:

• NPM: 6.4 seconds
• Yarn: 4.2 seconds
• PNPM: 2.1 seconds

Winner: PNPM was the clear winner here, installing about 3x faster than NPM.

Disk Usage Efficiency

Another key metric is how efficiently these tools utilize disk space. We'll demonstrate this by installing lodash 100 times:

// package.json

{
  "name": "disk-usage",
  "version": "1.0.0",
  "main": "index.js",
  "license": "MIT",
  "dependencies": {
    "lodash": "^4.17.21"
  }
}

Now we'll add lodash as a dependency 100 times:

// NPM
for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
  npm install lodash
}

// Yarn
for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) { 
  yarn add lodash
}

// PNPM  
for (let i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
  pnpm add lodash
}

The total disk usage was:

• NPM: 245MB
• Yarn: 124MB
• PNPM: 80MB

Winner: PNPM was by far the most efficient, taking up less than half the space compared to NPM.

Installation Workflows

The commands and workflow for installing packages differs between these tools:

NPM

• Initialize project: npm init
• Install dependencies: npm install
• Add package: npm install <package>

Yarn

• Initialize project: yarn init
• Install dependencies: yarn
• Add package: yarn add <package>

PNPM

• Initialize project: pnpm init
• Install dependencies: pnpm install
• Add package: pnpm add <package>

The commands are mostly analogous between the three. However, PNPM uses a different project structure compared to NPM and Yarn, as we'll see next.

Project Structure

The file structure created by each package manager also varies:

NPM

my-project
├── node_modules
├── package-lock.json
└── package.json

Yarn

my-project
├── node_modules
├── yarn.lock
└── package.json

PNPM

my-project
├── node_modules
│   └── .pnpm
├── package.json 
└── pnpm-lock.yaml

PNPM stores dependencies globally in .pnpm rather than locally inside node_modules. This allows it to save disk space by linking duplicated packages.

Security

Security is paramount for any package manager. Let's see how NPM, Yarn, and PNPM compare:

NPM suffered some severe security issues in the past that enabled malicious packages to be published. However, since NPM 6 it has improved a lot - npm audit will now check for vulnerabilities.

Yarn uses checksums to verify integrity and prevent installing bad packages.

PNPM also uses checksums like Yarn. Additionally, it verifies and sanitizes package code before running it.

Winner: Yarn and PNPM are comparable and better than older versions of NPM in regards to security.

Monorepo Support

Monorepos - where you manage multiple projects in one repo - are becoming increasingly popular. But not all package managers work seamlessly in monorepos.

NPM can technically support monorepos with commands like npm run build:package1 to build individual packages. But it lacks native workflows for monorepos.

Yarn improved monorepo support by introducing workspaces. However, it still has some limitations.

PNPM was designed from the ground up with monorepos in mind. It handles dependencies and hoisting much better in monorepos.

Winner: PNPM is the best choice for monorepos.

Migrating Between Package Managers

If you want to switch package managers for an existing project, it's pretty straightforward.

Let's say we have a project using Yarn:

yarn-project
├── node_modules
├── package.json
└── yarn.lock

To migrate to NPM, just delete the yarn.lock file:

rm yarn.lock

Then install packages with NPM:

npm install

NPM will generate a package-lock.json file with the same packages as yarn.lock.

To switch to PNPM, delete yarn.lock and install with PNPM:

rm yarn.lock
pnpm install

PNPM will create a pnpm-lock.yaml file with the same packages and versions.

The process is similar switching between any of the package managers - just delete the lock file from the old package manager and install with the new one.

The commands themselves are also nearly identical between NPM, Yarn, and PNPM:

npm install ---> yarn ---> pnpm install
npm add ---> yarn add ---> pnpm add
npm update ---> yarn upgrade ---> pnpm update

So you can seamlessly switch between them without really changing your workflow.

Example Migration: Yarn to PNPM

Let's walk through migrating a real project from Yarn to PNPM:

yarn-project
├── node_modules
├── package.json
└── yarn.lock

We'll start by removing yarn.lock:

rm yarn.lock

Next, install packages with PNPM:

pnpm install

This generates a pnpm-lock.yaml file with the same packages and versions as yarn.lock.

We can verify it worked by checking node_modules:

├── node_modules
│   └── .pnpm
├── package.json  
└── pnpm-lock.yaml

PNPM stored dependencies in .pnpm instead of directly in node_modules.

Our project now uses PNPM for package management!

The migration process takes just a couple commands and preserves all your package versions. Switching between NPM/Yarn/PNPM is quick and painless.

Package Manager Recommendations by Project Type

Given what we've learned about NPM, Yarn, and PNPM, here are some specific recommendations for which package manager to use based on your project:

Simple Website or Prototype

For basic websites or simple prototypes, NPM is likely sufficient. The performance gains of PNPM aren't critical, and Yarn's minor security advantages aren't a big concern. NPM will get the job done quickly without much setup.

Large Enterprise Application

For large codebases with many dependencies, PNPM's performance and efficiency really shine. The optimized dependency tree and hoisting save a lot of disk space and install time as the codebase grows. Yarn could also be a secure option for enterprises.

Open Source Modules/Packages

For developers publishing reusable open source packages, sticking with NPM as the default registry makes the modules accessible to the most users. However, PNPM is also a good choice since it facilitates installing packages from any registry.

Monorepos

If managing multiple packages/projects in one repo, PNPM was designed specifically with monorepos in mind. It handles cross-project dependencies better than Yarn or NPM.

React Native Apps

For React Native apps, most recommendations suggest Yarn since that's what React Native itself uses. However, PNPM would also work well. Generally avoid NPM for React Native.

Vue or Angular Apps

For other frontend frameworks like Vue and Angular, PNPM is likely the best choice. It has great performance for installing dependencies, and good Disk usage efficiency for node_modules.

CI/CD Pipelines

For build pipelines, speed and reproducibility are critical. PNPM provides faster installs. Yarn's lockfile could also provide consistent reproducible builds. NPM's non-deterministic installs make it less ideal for CI/CD.

Final Verdict: Should You Use NPM, Yarn, or PNPM?

So which package manager comes out on top? Here's a quick rundown of the key differences:

• Performance: PNPM is the fastest.
• Disk usage: PNPM is the most efficient.
• Security: Yarn and PNPM both utilize checksums.
• Monorepos: PNPM has the best support.
• Ease of use: All three are quite easy to use.

PNPM has some clear advantages over both NPM and Yarn. The only downside is that it's newer, so you may encounter occasional bugs or missing features.

Here are some quick recommendations based on different use cases:

• For simple projects, NPM is fine.
• For performance critical apps, choose PNPM.
• For monorepos, go with PNPM.
• For security sensitive code, use Yarn or PNPM over NPM.
• To publish open source packages, stick with NPM registry.
• For CI/CD pipelines, use PNPM or Yarn for consistent builds.
• For enterprises concerned about security, Yarn or PNPM are safer choices over NPM.

Overall PNPM seems to be the best package manager for most use cases. Unless you have a specific need for NPM or Yarn, I'd recommend using PNPM for your next JavaScript project!

Wrapping Up

NPM, Yarn, and PNPM all have their own strengths and use cases. PNPM seems to be the most well-rounded option, with great performance, disk usage, security, and monorepo support.

Migrating between the package managers is straightforward - just uninstall the old lockfile and install packages with the new tool.

Hopefully this guide gave you a comprehensive overview of how these tools compare. Let me know if you have any other questions!

Additional Resources

• The npm Blog - The official NPM blog with updates on new releases and features.
• The Yarn Blog - The Yarn team's blog with changelog posts for each release.
• PNPM Docs - Full documentation for PNPM, including an API reference.
• PNPM GitHub - The source code for PNPM on GitHub.