iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
EJS, Handlebars, Nunjucks, and Pug still have documented roles in JavaScript projects that generate HTML or other text from data. The right choice depends on how you want to write templates, how much structure you need, who can author them, and whether your application uses Express or React. There is no evidence here to rank these tools by popularity or speed.
What counts as a JavaScript templating engine?
A classic template engine combines a template with data to produce HTML or another text format. The template supplies markup and placeholders or control structures; the application supplies values. These libraries overlap with component rendering, but they are not all the same kind of tool: React renders a component tree rather than using a classic template language.
For a new project, compare authoring syntax, reusable structure, output safety, framework integration, and whether the rendered page needs interactivity. For an existing project, documented support and fit with the current stack are stronger reasons to keep an engine than assumptions about what is fashionable.
How the main options differ
| Option | Authoring style | Useful when | Important consideration |
|---|---|---|---|
| EJS | HTML with embedded JavaScript | You want familiar JavaScript expressions and control flow in templates. | Templates execute JavaScript, so template access and render inputs need a clear trust boundary. |
| Handlebars | Constrained, Mustache-like expressions | You want a more limited template language with default HTML escaping for ordinary expressions. | Triple braces and SafeString bypass escaping; HTML escaping is not a universal defense for every output context. |
| Nunjucks | Jinja-style blocks and template constructs | You need inheritance, macros, or other structure for substantial templates. | Its project page documents capabilities, but does not establish current release activity or adoption. |
| Pug | Indentation-oriented markup syntax | You already use Pug or want an Express view-engine workflow compatible with it. | Express’s generator default is evidence of an integration path, not proof of popularity. |
| React server rendering | React component tree | Your project already uses React and needs server-generated markup. | Static markup is non-interactive and cannot be hydrated; interactive applications need a different server-rendering and hydration path. |
When to choose each engine
EJS: JavaScript inside markup
EJS describes itself as an embedded JavaScript templating language. Its project documentation covers server and browser use, compilation and caching, includes, and compatibility with the Express view system. See the EJS project documentation.
#1 Best Overall
Consider EJS when a team prefers to express template logic using JavaScript rather than learn a separate, more constrained language. That flexibility has a security consequence: EJS warns that giving end users unfettered access to its render method is inherently insecure, and describes EJS as effectively a JavaScript runtime. Do not let users supply executable templates, and validate inputs rather than passing request-controlled objects through as render options.
The npm package page reports EJS 6.0.1 and describes verification with several bundlers and alternate runtimes. That page dates the release four months before its retrieval; treat the version as a dated snapshot, not a guarantee of the latest release. Check the package page for the version and compatibility relevant to your deployment: EJS on npm.
Rank #2
Handlebars: a more constrained template language
Handlebars uses a template and an input object to generate HTML or other text, is largely compatible with Mustache, and compiles templates into JavaScript functions. It is a good candidate when templates should be less permissive than embedded JavaScript or when a team already knows Mustache-style syntax. The Handlebars guide explains its language and usage.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Ordinary {{expression}} output is HTML-escaped by default. Triple-stash expressions and Handlebars.SafeString disable that protection. Moreover, HTML escaping does not make a value safe in every context: JavaScript, CSS, URLs, and event-handler attributes have different requirements. Review the Handlebars security guidance before adding raw-output helpers or placing data in sensitive contexts.
Nunjucks: structure for layouts and reusable templates
Nunjucks is worth evaluating when templates need block inheritance, macros, or other reusable structure and a Jinja-like syntax suits the team. Its project page lists inheritance, autoescaping, asynchronous control, extensions, and Node and browser availability: Nunjucks documentation.
Those documented capabilities explain what the engine is designed to do; they do not establish its current release cadence, maintenance activity, or adoption. Verify current maintenance and compatibility with your runtime before choosing it for a new system.
Rank #4
Pug: an established Express view-engine path
Express documents a template-engine workflow in which its application generator uses Pug by default. The generator can also create applications configured for EJS and Handlebars-compatible engines such as hbs. Express invokes compatible engines through its view system. The Express template-engine guide describes the integration.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Pug is a sensible choice if a project already uses it or its indentation-oriented syntax fits the team. A scaffolding default shows that Express supports the path; it does not show how widely Pug is used.
React: adjacent, not interchangeable
React belongs in the comparison when a project already renders components, but it is not a classic template engine. React’s renderToStaticMarkup produces a non-interactive HTML string, and that output cannot be hydrated. For an interactive React application, use an appropriate interactive server-rendering and hydration path instead; React points to renderToString and hydrateRoot for that distinction. See the React static-markup reference.
How to decide for a project
- Start with the existing stack. In an Express application, check the view-engine integration and current scaffold before adding another rendering model. In a React application, decide whether the page is component-rendered and interactive rather than comparing only template syntax.
- Choose the authoring model. Pick EJS if embedded JavaScript is desirable and the team can protect executable templates. Pick Handlebars if constrained expressions are preferable. Consider Nunjucks when inheritance and macros are central, or Pug when its syntax and Express path fit the project.
- Map the template structure. Identify whether pages need includes, layouts, inheritance, macros, or only straightforward interpolation. Choose for the actual reuse and composition needs rather than the longest feature list.
- Define the trust boundary and output contexts. Establish who may edit templates and whether data is user-controlled. Review raw-output mechanisms, validate render inputs, and apply encoding appropriate to where each value appears.
- Verify current operational fit. Check package releases, runtime support, ecosystem integration, and any dependencies against the versions you plan to deploy. This matters particularly when relying on a capability page that does not demonstrate current maintenance activity.
- Benchmark only if throughput is a real requirement. Measure the chosen libraries on your own templates, data, runtime, and workload. The available evidence does not supply a comparable performance ranking.
What “still matters” does—and does not—mean
These options remain relevant in the practical sense that their project documentation describes usable roles: embedding JavaScript in markup, writing constrained templates, building inheritance-heavy views, or integrating a view engine with Express. That is not evidence that any one has the largest user base, is fastest, or is the best default for every new application. Mustache is useful context for understanding Handlebars compatibility, but the available sources do not establish Mustache.js’s current package status or maintenance.
For a small Express-rendered site, evaluate EJS if JavaScript control flow is a priority and Handlebars if you want more constrained templates. For layout-heavy views, assess Nunjucks and verify its present-day maintenance first. If an Express application is already scaffolded with Pug, continuing with it is a supported option, not a reason to migrate other projects. In React, keep component rendering and hydration in the decision rather than treating static markup as a drop-in template replacement.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
