StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. Application & Data
  3. Templating Languages & Extensions
  4. Templating Languages And Extensions
  5. Materialize vs Pug

Materialize vs Pug

OverviewComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Pug
Pug
Stacks1.3K
Followers1.2K
Votes467
Materialize
Materialize
Stacks698
Followers1.2K
Votes557
GitHub Stars39.1K
Forks4.7K

Materialize vs Pug: What are the differences?

# Introduction
Key differences between Materialize and Pug are outlined below.

1. **Syntax**: Materialize is a CSS framework that focuses on providing pre-built components and styles, while Pug is a templating engine used to generate HTML markup. Materialize requires knowledge of CSS classes and structure, whereas Pug uses simplified indentation-based syntax for creating HTML templates.
2. **Purpose**: Materialize is primarily used for designing visually appealing websites with ready-to-use elements like buttons, cards, and forms. On the other hand, Pug is used for streamlining HTML code generation by allowing developers to write less verbose markup using its concise syntax.
3. **Dependencies**: Materialize is dependent on CSS and JavaScript files to apply its styles and functionalities. Pug, on the other hand, does not require any additional files as it is server-side based and can be used with any backend technology that supports template engines.
4. **Customization**: Materialize offers a range of customizable options through its classes and utilities but may not provide as much flexibility in terms of modifying built-in components. Pug allows for more dynamic content rendering and template reuse through the use of variables and mixins, enabling developers to create versatile HTML layouts.
5. **Integration**: Materialize can be integrated into any web project by including its CSS and JavaScript files in the HTML document. In contrast, Pug needs to be integrated into the backend environment using plugins or modules based on the specific server-side technology being used.
6. **Learning Curve**: While Materialize may be easier to grasp for frontend developers familiar with CSS, Pug might have a steeper learning curve for those transitioning from traditional HTML templating due to its unique syntax and concepts.

In Summary, Materialize and Pug differ in their syntax, purpose, dependencies, customization options, integration methods, and learning curves, catering to distinct needs in web development. 

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs
CLI (Node.js)
or
Manual

Detailed Comparison

Pug
Pug
Materialize
Materialize

This project was formerly known as "Jade." Pug is a high performance template engine heavily influenced by Haml and implemented with JavaScript for Node.js and browsers.

A CSS Framework based on material design.

-
Speeds up development;User Experience Focused;Easy to work with
Statistics
GitHub Stars
-
GitHub Stars
39.1K
GitHub Forks
-
GitHub Forks
4.7K
Stacks
1.3K
Stacks
698
Followers
1.2K
Followers
1.2K
Votes
467
Votes
557
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 138
    Elegant html
  • 90
    Great with nodejs
  • 59
    Open source
  • 59
    Very short syntax
  • 54
    Structured with indentation
Pros
  • 102
    Google material design
  • 74
    Easy to use
  • 74
    Responsive
  • 54
    Modern looks
  • 48
    Open source
Cons
  • 7
    Mobile errors
  • 6
    Poor Grid System
  • 2
    Unmaintained
Integrations
Node.js
Node.js
No integrations available

What are some alternatives to Pug, Materialize?

Bootstrap

Bootstrap

Bootstrap is the most popular HTML, CSS, and JS framework for developing responsive, mobile first projects on the web.

Foundation

Foundation

Foundation is the most advanced responsive front-end framework in the world. You can quickly prototype and build sites or apps that work on any kind of device with Foundation, which includes layout constructs (like a fully responsive grid), elements and best practices.

Semantic UI

Semantic UI

Semantic empowers designers and developers by creating a shared vocabulary for UI.

Material Design for Angular

Material Design for Angular

Material Design is a specification for a unified system of visual, motion, and interaction design that adapts across different devices. Our goal is to deliver a lean, lightweight set of AngularJS-native UI elements that implement the material design system for use in Angular SPAs.

TypeScript

TypeScript

TypeScript is a language for application-scale JavaScript development. It's a typed superset of JavaScript that compiles to plain JavaScript.

Material-UI

Material-UI

Material UI is a library of React UI components that implements Google's Material Design.

Blazor

Blazor

Blazor is a .NET web framework that runs in any browser. You author Blazor apps using C#/Razor and HTML.

Quasar Framework

Quasar Framework

Build responsive Single Page Apps, SSR Apps, PWAs, Hybrid Mobile Apps and Electron Apps, all using the same codebase!, powered with Vue.

Nuxt.js

Nuxt.js

Nuxt.js presets all the configuration needed to make your development of a Vue.js application enjoyable. You can use Nuxt.js for SSR, SPA, Static Generated, PWA and more.

Handlebars.js

Handlebars.js

Handlebars.js is an extension to the Mustache templating language created by Chris Wanstrath. Handlebars.js and Mustache are both logicless templating languages that keep the view and the code separated like we all know they should be.

Related Comparisons

Bootstrap
Materialize

Bootstrap vs Materialize

Laravel
Django

Django vs Laravel vs Node.js

Bootstrap
Foundation

Bootstrap vs Foundation vs Material UI

Node.js
Spring Boot

Node.js vs Spring-Boot

Liquibase
Flyway

Flyway vs Liquibase