Bulma Vs Bootstrap: Which Is Better in 2025?

In modern user interface design, CSS frameworks are indispensable tools. They provide a foundational structure that permits developers to build responsive, consistent, and mobile-first websites with significant speed. Among the many available options, two popular open-source frameworks are Bootstrap and Bulma. 

The decision between Bulma vs Bootstrap is a frequent one for development teams. This article aims to provide a definitive comparison from a developer's perspective, analyzing their core design philosophies, feature sets, customization capabilities, and performance metrics to help you select the right tool for your project.

Bulma vs Bootstrap: Basic Comparison

To understand the differences, we must first define each framework. They originate from different philosophies and solve frontend challenges in distinct ways.

What is Bootstrap?

Bootstrap is a complete frontend toolkit containing HTML, CSS, and JavaScript. It was created at Twitter by Mark Otto and Jacob Thornton and was released as an open-source project in 2011. It provides a comprehensive suite of pre-built components, a powerful grid system, and numerous utility classes. Its longevity has resulted in extensive documentation and one of the largest communities in web development, making it a reliable choice for complex applications. According to W3Techs, Bootstrap is used by 75.6% of all the websites whose CSS framework we know. This is 15.8% of all websites.

What is Bulma?

Bulma is a more recent CSS-only framework created by Jeremy Thomas and released in 2016. It is built with Sass and has no JavaScript or jQuery dependencies, offering a lightweight alternative. Bulma fully embraces a mobile-first design philosophy, using CSS Flexbox for its intuitive grid system. It supports modularity, allowing developers to import only the necessary parts from its 39 Sass files. Bulma is recognized for its simple, readable class names (e.g., .button, .title) and an easy-to-learn modifier system (e.g., .is-primary, .is-large).

Why Frameworks Matter

CSS frameworks are crucial for efficient development. They establish design consistency across an entire project, ensuring that buttons, forms, and other UI elements look uniform. They also handle cross-browser compatibility, saving developers from writing tedious vendor prefixes and fixes. Pre-built components and utility classes accelerate the development process immensely. Key decision factors for developers when choosing a framework include:

• Responsive layout capabilities

• Customization options

• Learning curve

• Performance and file size

• Community support and ecosystem

Similarities Between Bulma and Bootstrap

Despite their differences, both frameworks share common ground. Understanding these similarities helps set a baseline for comparison.

• Both are free, open-source CSS frameworks intended for responsive web design.

• They each use Flexbox as the primary mechanism for their modern grid systems.

• Both provide responsive helper classes and utilities to adjust layouts for different screen sizes.

• They offer official support for integrating with the popular Font Awesome icon library.

• Each is built with mobile-friendliness as a core principle.

• They aim for excellent cross-browser compatibility, though studies show Bootstrap has historically provided more extensive accessibility support.

Bulma Vs Bootstrap: Detailed Comparisons

The real distinction appears when we inspect their specific features. This detailed Bulma vs Bootstrap comparison will inspect the core differences that matter most to development teams.

1. Grid System, Responsive Layout & Flexbox Support

Bootstrap’s grid is famously structured around a .container, .row, and .col system. Developers use breakpoint-specific classes like .col-md-4 or .col-lg-6 to control layouts across different screen sizes. This system offers granular control but can sometimes lead to verbose and nested HTML.

Bulma simplifies the grid. A developer wraps any number of .column elements inside a single .columns container. These columns automatically distribute themselves horizontally and stack vertically on mobile devices by default. This Flexbox-powered approach is often more intuitive and results in cleaner markup. Bootstrap's grid gives you precise control, while Bulma's grid offers simplicity and elegance.

2. Mobile-First Design

Both frameworks are designed with a mobile-first approach. Bootstrap achieves this through its responsive breakpoints and utility classes that apply mobile styles first, then scale up for larger screens. This has been a core part of its philosophy for many versions.

Bulma, however, was engineered from the very beginning as a mobile-first framework. Its components are inherently optimized for vertical reading on smaller screens. For instance, the navigation bar component automatically hides menu items behind a hamburger icon on mobile viewports, a common pattern that developers often have to implement manually.

3. Component Library & Utility Classes

Bootstrap provides a rich library of components. These include navigation bars, forms, dropdowns, modals, tabs, and carousels. Many of these components depend on Bootstrap’s custom JavaScript plugins for interactive features. It also offers an extensive set of utility classes for managing margin, padding, flex properties, and display types.

Bulma’s component library is more focused and entirely modular. It includes essential elements like cards, navbars, modals, and messages. Since it intentionally omits JavaScript, its components are purely structural and stylistic. Customization is achieved through its modifier system, such as adding .is-primary to a button to change its color. Some developer feedback on Reddit indicates that Bulma lacks certain utility classes found in Bootstrap, while others appreciate its dependency-free nature.

4. Customization Options and Modularity

Customization is a strength of Bootstrap. It uses Sass variables, maps, and functions that permit developers to alter nearly every aspect of the framework. You can re-theme colors, change spacing, modify component styles, and more. Tools like the Bootstrap Live Customizer assist in this process, though the sheer number of options can increase complexity.

Bulma champions modularity. Its entire structure is a collection of Sass files that can be imported individually. If you only need its grid system and buttons, you can import just those files, significantly reducing the final CSS size. The modifier class system also makes visual customization direct and easy to understand without digging into Sass files.

5. Cross-Browser Compatibility and Accessibility

Bootstrap has a long history of supporting a wide range of browsers, including Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Microsoft Edge. It also has a strong focus on accessibility. By default, many of its components include accessible ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and are constructed to follow WCAG 2.0 guidelines. This makes it a dependable choice for projects that require strict compliance and broad browser support.

Bulma performs well in all modern browsers. In contrast, its out-of-the-box accessibility support is less extensive. Developers often need to add ARIA attributes and other accessibility features manually to meet compliance standards.

6. Learning Curve & Documentation Quality

Given its integration of HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, Bootstrap has a steeper learning curve. A developer must understand not only the CSS classes but also the data attributes and JavaScript APIs for interactive components. Its documentation is incredibly extensive and supported by a massive community, providing answers to almost any question.

Bulma is generally considered easier for beginners. Its CSS-only nature, readable class names, and uncomplicated modifier system make it quicker to start with. While its documentation is clear and well-written, the community and the volume of third-party resources are smaller than Bootstrap's.

7. Performance & File Size

Performance is a critical factor in the Bulma vs Bootstrap evaluation, with each framework offering a different profile. Bootstrap’s default compiled CSS and JS files are larger. This can lead to slower page load times, particularly on mobile devices or slow network connections, and increases data usage for the end-user.

Bulma is exceptionally lightweight. Its CSS-only architecture and modular design mean you can compile a very small file containing only the features you use. This results in faster load times and a better performance score, making it a great option for performance-critical projects. Of course, best practices like minification and compression should be used with either framework.

8. Community Support & Ecosystem

Bootstrap's community is one of its greatest assets. It is used by approximately 21.6% of websites that have a known JavaScript library, which translates to about 17.5% of all websites. This massive user base has created a vast ecosystem of free and premium themes, plugins, and tutorials.

Bulma's community, while smaller, is active and passionate. The framework is used by over 12,000 companies. Its clean, modern aesthetic appeals strongly to designers and developers building new applications.

9. Advanced Features & JavaScript Integration

Bootstrap's JavaScript plugins are a major feature. They allow developers to quickly integrate interactive components like modals, tooltips, carousels, and dropdown menus without writing any custom JavaScript. This is a significant time-saver for projects that require these standard UI patterns.

Bulma intentionally excludes JavaScript to remain a pure styling layer. This gives developers complete freedom to choose their own JavaScript libraries or frameworks (like Vue.js or React) for interactivity. While this means more work to add features like a modal, it also prevents library conflicts and keeps the codebase clean.

Pros and Cons Of Bulma & Bootstrap

The following table summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each framework.

Pros and Cons Of Bootstrap

The following table summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of the Bootstrap framework.

Pros and Cons Of Bulma

This table outlines the primary advantages and disadvantages of the Bulma framework.

Real-World Developer Opinions (Reddit Insights)

The debate of Bulma vs Bootstrap is active within developer communities online. Real-world opinions provide practical context.

A Reddit user named “clearcss” shared their progression: “I started with vanilla CSS, then Bootstrap, switched to Bulma, and finally settled on TailwindCSS… the payoff is immediate… it separates the UI from interaction. For that I use Vue.js.” This comment shows a common path from component-based frameworks toward utility-first frameworks, where a separate JavaScript library handles interactivity.

Another user, “oliviaisarobot,” finds Bootstrap “bloated unless I weed out styles” and prefers it mainly for quick prototypes. They state that Bulma is less bloated but lacks certain positioning and utility classes. This feedback illustrates the trade-off between having a rich feature set and maintaining a lightweight codebase.

Other developers strongly prefer Bulma for being dependency-free, which simplifies integration with modern JavaScript frameworks. Conversely, many continue to value Bootstrap for its comprehensive components that accelerate development on large-scale applications. There is no clear consensus; the ideal choice is always dependent on the project.

Choosing Between Bulma and Bootstrap

Making the right choice in the Bulma vs Bootstrap decision depends heavily on project needs. The following table provides guidance based on common project requirements.

As suggested by developer feedback, you are not limited to one or the other. Some teams mix frameworks, and many are migrating to utility-first frameworks like Tailwind CSS when they need maximum control over the final design.

Performance Optimization Tips

Regardless of your choice, you can optimize performance.

1. Import Only What You Need: Use Bulma’s modular Sass file imports or customize a Bootstrap build to include only the components and utilities your project requires.

2. Minify and Compress: Always use build tools to minify your final CSS and JavaScript files. Configure your server to use Gzip or Brotli compression to reduce file sizes further.

3. Manage Scripts: If using Bootstrap, remove unused JavaScript plugins from your build. If using Bulma, write efficient, minimal custom scripts to handle interactivity without adding bloat.

Conclusion

Both frameworks are powerful tools that provide responsive layouts and cross-browser support. The Bulma vs Bootstrap choice is not about finding a single best tool but about selecting the appropriate tool for the job.

Bootstrap excels with its comprehensive component library, deep customization options, strong accessibility support, and unparalleled community. These qualities make it an outstanding choice for complex, feature-rich projects and enterprise applications where consistency and a deep well of resources are vital.

Bulma prioritizes simplicity, modern aesthetics, and performance. Its lightweight, CSS-only, and modular architecture is ideal for developers who want a clean design foundation with minimal overhead. It integrates cleanly with modern JavaScript frameworks, making it perfect for custom web applications. We encourage you to evaluate your project's specific requirements, your team's expertise, and your performance goals when choosing your next framework.

FAQ

1) In the Bulma vs Bootstrap debate, which is better?

Neither is universally “better”; the choice depends on the project. Bootstrap offers more components, better accessibility, and a vast community. Bulma is lightweight, easier to learn, and uses a simpler Flexbox grid. Bulma is often simpler for new developers, while Bootstrap suits complex applications.

2) Is there anything better than Bootstrap?

Many alternatives exist, such as Tailwind CSS, Foundation, and Material UI. Each has unique strengths. Tailwind provides utility-first classes for high customization. Foundation and Material UI include robust component sets. The best choice depends on your project goals.

3) Is Bulma better than Tailwind?

Bulma and Tailwind have different goals. Bulma gives you pre-styled components to build standard UIs quickly. Tailwind is a utility-first framework that provides low-level classes for building completely custom designs. Choose based on whether you need pre-built components (Bulma) or granular control (Tailwind).

4) What is replacing Bootstrap?

No single framework is replacing Bootstrap. While it remains widely used, developers are also adopting Tailwind CSS, Bulma, Foundation, and others based on their needs. The trend towards utility-first frameworks indicates a desire for more customization and smaller file sizes, but Bootstrap's ecosystem ensures its continued relevance.