Video.js
Ranked 5 of 24 JavaScript libraries by recommenders
Free, maintained JavaScript video player with composable design and streaming support; critics find it heavy when native browser video suffices.
Free, maintained JavaScript video player with composable design and streaming support; critics find it heavy when native browser video suffices.
30 people gave an opinion
- recommend it
- 24
- criticize it
- 6
- approval share
- 80%
Recommended in 1 of 13 months
- November 2025: not recommended
- December 2025: not recommended
- January 2026: not recommended
- February 2026: not recommended
- March 2026: recommended
- April 2026: not recommended
- May 2026: not recommended
- June 2026: not recommended
- July 2026: not recommended
- August 2026: not recommended
- September 2026: not recommended
- October 2026: not recommended
- November 2026: not recommended (month in progress)
Why it doesn’t carry the badge
- 24 people recommend itNeeds 10 or more, met.
- 4 recommenders for every criticNeeds 2 to 1 or better, met.
- Recommended in 1 of 13 monthsNeeds 4 or more, not met.
The same three rules apply to every product, and the badge can’t be bought. How the badge works
What people say about it
The reasons people give, with the number of comments that give each one. Open a reason to read what they said.
Why people recommend it
Each mark is one comment
Composable, tree-shakeable architecture
“by building a highly composable, loosely coupled player framework with well defined architectural seams/contracts”
Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller” “Less trade-offs and more taking advantage of modern JS bundlers.”
Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller” “The composable/tree-shakeable direction is the right call.”
Comment from 26 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller” - Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller”
Easy switching between streaming formats
“If you want it to be dirt simple to switch between, say, a simple MP4, MPEG-DASH, or HLS, Video.js's architecture makes that simple.”
Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller” “If you need stable video player or want streaming features you should use it.”
Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller” “Video.js is catered for those required streaming.”
Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller” Plugin ecosystem and theming
“inspired by the simplicity of video.js (especially the theming)”
Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller” “The plugin ecosystem was for me a huge benefit for Video.js”
Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller” Easy-to-use APIs
“we're pouring love into the APIs so they feel good to use”
Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller” “You absolutely can do that with videojs, it's very easy.”
Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller” “I do this with videojs and it works great.”
Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller”
What people warn about
Each mark is one comment
Size and dependency weight concerns
“there's no reason to take on a dependency like this if you don't need something beyond what the web platform already gives you”
Comment from 26 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller” “lamenting the other day about the size of video.js, which is used in my legacy web app”
Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller” Bugs and missing features reported
“Seeking on the main https://videojs.org/ page doesn't work for me on chromium.”
Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller” “a quick test to replace my audio player turned up the following gaps for me”
Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller” “I switched off video.js some time ago because it kept giving me trouble.”
Comment from 24 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller” - Comment from 25 Mar 2026 in “Show HN: I took back Video.js after 16 years and we rewrote it to be 88% smaller”
Other JavaScript libraries people recommend
The four most recommended other JavaScript libraries, with the same counts for each, so you can compare like for like. The tick on each bar marks the 2 to 1 line the badge needs.
| Product | Recommend | Criticize | Approval | Months | Owned | Badge |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| jQuery | 111 | 48 | 70% | 12 | 16 yrs8 owners | Approved |
| Picknplace.js | 58 | 26 | 69% | 1 | — | — |
| Alpine.js | 50 | 16 | 76% | 11 | 1 yr4 owners | Approved |
| Effect (TypeScript library) | 38 | 16 | 70% | 10 | 2 yrs3 owners | Approved |
| Video.jsThis page | 24 | 6 | 80% | 1 | — | — |
What people said
34 of the 37 comments that mention it, newest first. Each links to the original comment.
“The composable/tree-shakeable direction is the right call.”
“there's no reason to take on a dependency like this if you don't need something beyond what the web platform already gives you”
“Screw it, I'll just use video.js”
“we've built VJS in a highly composable manner”
“If you want it to be dirt simple to switch between, say, a simple MP4, MPEG-DASH, or HLS, Video.js's architecture makes that simple.”
“has generally been dismayed at the state of the plugin ecosystem”
“It would be good if videoJS had youtube embed api and documentation”
“Less trade-offs and more taking advantage of modern JS bundlers.”
“Video.js is catered for those required streaming.”
“Great Work, Loved the approach.”
“by building a highly composable, loosely coupled player framework with well defined architectural seams/contracts”
“Looks cool, reminds of a VHS box.”
“On Mac with Increase Contrast turned on in accessibility settings the control bar ends up being white-on-light-grey”
“You absolutely can do that with videojs, it's very easy.”
“Having a maintained, lightweight player that handles the hard parts is genuinely valuable.”
“I do this with videojs and it works great.”
“The plugin ecosystem was for me a huge benefit for Video.js”
“thanks for the comprehensive blog post and not treating the reader like children”
“If at some point you need Video.js, it'll become obvious pretty quick.”
“If you need stable video player or want streaming features you should use it.”
“Seeking on the main https://videojs.org/ page doesn't work for me on chromium.”
“a quick test to replace my audio player turned up the following gaps for me”
“migrating will take some work, but I think worth it when you can make the time”
“we're pouring love into the APIs so they feel good to use”
“we at least have a lot of flexibility here that makes me feel pretty good about the fundamentals”
“lamenting the other day about the size of video.js, which is used in my legacy web app”
“The feature-array approach to createPlayer is smart.”
“With VJS 10 I think we've landed on a pretty reasonable middle ground.”
“inspired by the simplicity of video.js (especially the theming)”
“If this and a VPS can do that, that'll be amazing”
“something I'm excited to build within the new Presets concept of video.js v10”
“it's looking great so far”
“I switched off video.js some time ago because it kept giving me trouble.”
“Absolutely love what you and your friends have built.”
Counts come from 1,795,640 Hacker News comments, November 2025 to November 2026. How we count. Report a mistake.