SWC vs UglifyJS
SWC
swc.rsUglifyJS
github.comSide by side
| Figure | SWC | UglifyJS |
|---|---|---|
| Price from | Free | Free |
| Free plan | Yes | Yes |
| Free trial | — | — |
| Open source | — | — |
| Web | Yes | — |
| Windows | Yes | — |
| macOS | Yes | — |
| Linux | Yes | Yes |
| Android | Yes | — |
| API | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hosted | — | Yes |
| Plans published | 1 | 1 |
| Spec score · JavaScript Build Tools | 8.3 (#4) | 7.3 (#22) |
| Integration | The swc-loader module lets projects use SWC with webpack, while Rspack has a built-in swc-loader. | The README documents npm and Node.js usage and describes using Acorn as an optional parser. |
| Purpose | SWC is an extensible Rust-based platform for fast developer tools that can compile and bundle JavaScript and TypeScript. | UglifyJS is a JavaScript parser, minifier, compressor and beautifier toolkit. |
| Security | The official pages reviewed do not state security certifications or compliance claims. | The repository has a Security tab, but the opened security page does not state a security policy or compliance certification. |
Plans
In their own words
SWC
SWC is a free, extensible Rust-based platform for tools that compile and bundle JavaScript and TypeScript. It transforms modern JavaScript and TypeScript into code intended for major browsers, and supports minification, WebAssembly transforms, and custom plugins. Its core API parses ECMAScript, TypeScript, and Flow syntax; the documentation describes that API as mainly useful to build-tool authors. Integrations include webpack, Rspack, and Jest, while Next.js, Parcel, and Deno are among the tools named as users. A WebAssembly module can transform code synchronously inside a browser. SWC can be installed as prebuilt binaries or built from source, with packages documented for npm, Yarn, pnpm, Bun, and Deno. The site states that it is 20x faster than Babel on one thread and 70x faster on four cores. The bundling documentation says that feature will be dropped in v2 and recommends SWC-based bundlers instead. It also warns that its polyfill usage mode is less efficient than Babel for certain dynamically computed property expressions.