Ranking
Technologies with less than 10% awareness not included.
Each ratio is defined as follows:
- Retention = would use again( would use again + would not use again )
- Interest = want to learn( want to learn + not interested )
- Usage = ( would use again + would not use again )total
- Awareness = ( total - never heard )total
Redux’s hold on the state management scene within React Native has been slowly slipping for years. The emergence of Redux Toolkit has given new life to the project, and it’s impressive to see its usage at 62% already.
Meanwhile, Zustand is a strong alternative given its familiar patterns and tiny footprint.
Observable-based state management libraries such as Jotai and MobX continue to have a smaller but passionate corner of the community. There seems to be a fairly clear divide between those libraries and the selector-based libraries.
React Query is very popular, and it’s active development and ability to work with other state management libraries gives it an edge in usage — you don’t have to choose between it and your favorite state system. You can use them both along side each other.
For state orchestration, XState has one of the largest gaps between interest (high) and usage (low). I attribute this to its initial learning curve and (necessarily) verbose syntax, as well as departure from the familiar patterns built up over the years. However, it sparks a ton of interest still due to the significant benefits it brings due to predictable and comprehensive state transitions.
Apollo remains widely used, but has been slipping slowly as new alternatives pop up. It is still the strongest GraphQL-centered state system. React Query is the most common alternative to Apollo since it is easier to adopt without switching out state systems.
My own MobX-State-Tree continues to be fairly niche with just 13% usage. It will be interesting to see if our investment in documentation and streamlining performance will have an impact over the next year.
Jamon Holmgren
Experience Over Time
| Would use again | |
| Would not use | |
| Interested | |
| Not interested | |
| Never heard |
Sentiment Split
This chart splits positive (“want to learn”, “would use again”) vs negative (“not interested”, “would not use again”) experiences on both sides of the central axis.
Bar thickness represents the number of respondents aware of a technology. Click on the individual label to see more details.