wireframe-ui vs Skeleton

Technical Comparison

Honest assessment of when to use wireframe-ui vs shadcn/ui Skeleton

Core Difference

Two tools, two different purposes

shadcn/ui Skeleton

Visual placeholder during data loading

Purpose

Loading States

Workflow

Design → Build → Add loading states

wireframe-ui

Structured prototyping system

Purpose

Prototyping & Migration

Workflow

Prototype → Migrate to production

Feature Comparison

Side-by-side technical assessment

Feature	Skeleton	wireframe-ui
Primary Purpose	Loading indicator	Prototyping system
Component Variety	1 component	10+ semantic components
Structure Preservation	No	Yes (~85%)
Production Migration	Not applicable	Built-in
Bundle Size	~1KB (minimal)	~8KB (moderate)

Decision Framework

Choose the right tool for your needs

Use shadcn/ui Skeleton

•You only need loading indicators
•No prototyping phase in workflow
•Bundle size is critical constraint
•Simple, straightforward use case
•Team already familiar with it

Use wireframe-ui

•Rapid prototyping is part of workflow
•Need to demo before backend ready
•Building design systems
•Want structured migration path
•Team does iterative design

Honest Assessment

Every tool has trade-offs

wireframe-ui Weaknesses

• Bundle overhead (~8KB vs ~1KB)
• Overkill for simple loading states
• Enforces specific workflow
• Smaller ecosystem than shadcn/ui

Skeleton Weaknesses

• Single purpose (loading only)
• No prototyping support
• No semantic meaning in code
• No structural consistency

Bias Disclosure: This comparison is maintained by the wireframe-ui project but aims for objectivity.

We acknowledge shadcn/ui Skeleton is excellent at what it does.