Picture this: you are building a content management tool for a client. You need users to format text, embed media, and keep the output clean. You reach for a rich text editor library. Then you spend three days reading docs, fighting with toolbar configs, and wondering why the HTML output looks like it was written by a caffeinated robot. Sound familiar?

Picking a browser-based rich text editor is harder than it looks. The options range from massive, opinionated frameworks to tiny, flexible building blocks. Each has a different philosophy about what a text editor should be. This guide breaks down five real contenders, what they are good at, and where they fall short.

Why This Choice Matters More Than You Think

A rich text editor sits at the heart of any content-heavy app. It shapes the user experience, the data format you store, and how much pain you feel six months from now. Choose the wrong one and you inherit its limitations forever.

Many developers grab the first editor that looks popular on GitHub. That works until you need a custom block type, collaborative editing, or accessibility compliance. Then the cracks appear fast. The MDN Web Docs have solid coverage of contenteditable, the browser API that powers most of these editors. Understanding that foundation helps you evaluate any library more clearly.

What should you actually look for? Here is a short checklist before you commit to any library:

Does it give you control over the output format (HTML, JSON, Markdown)?
Is the plugin or extension API actually usable without forking the repo?
How does it handle accessibility and keyboard navigation?
What is the bundle size impact on your app?
Is the project actively maintained as of 2026?

Keep those questions in mind as we go through each editor. No single tool wins on all five points. The right choice depends on your project's specific constraints.

Wordgard: The New Contender from a Familiar Name

Wordgard is an open-source JavaScript library for building in-browser rich text editors. It comes from Marijn Haverbeke, the same developer behind ProseMirror. That name carries weight in the editor space. ProseMirror has been the backbone of tools like Notion and Atlassian's editor for years.

Wordgard takes a different approach than its predecessor. The key design decision is that it is not a free-form HTML editor. Instead, you define exactly what kinds of content your editor supports. That constraint sounds limiting at first. In practice, it means your output stays clean and predictable. No mystery markup sneaking in from a paste operation.

The library ships under the MIT license, which means you can use it in commercial projects. There is a social expectation (not a legal one) that commercial users contribute to its maintenance. That funding model is worth noting. It keeps the project independent without locking it behind a paywall.

One unusual policy: Wordgard does not accept pull requests. The maintainer reviews issues and handles changes directly. That keeps the codebase coherent but does mean the community contributes through bug reports and funding rather than code patches. Developers who want to discuss the project can use the official Wordgard forum.

When Wordgard Makes Sense

Wordgard is a strong fit when you need a custom editing experience with precise content rules. Think structured document editors, legal drafting tools, or any app where you cannot afford unpredictable HTML output. Its programming interface is designed for complex use cases.

If you just need a basic WYSIWYG editor for a blog CMS, Wordgard might be more infrastructure than you need. It rewards developers who are willing to invest time in setup. The payoff is a foundation that scales well.

ProseMirror: Battle-Tested and Highly Configurable

ProseMirror is the library that Wordgard builds on conceptually. It uses a document model rather than raw HTML, which gives you a structured representation of content at all times. That makes features like collaborative editing much more tractable.

Comparison of five in-browser rich text editor libraries displayed in a developer workspace

The trade-off is complexity. ProseMirror's API is powerful but verbose. Setting up a basic editor requires wiring together a schema, a view, a state, and plugins. Many teams use it through a higher-level wrapper like Tiptap rather than directly. That wrapper approach adds convenience but also adds an abstraction layer you sometimes need to fight through.

Checklist for Choosing Editors

✓

Control Output Format
HTML, JSON, or Markdown options.

✓

Usable Plugin API
Avoid forking the repository.

✓

Accessibility Compliance
Ensure keyboard navigation support.

✓

Bundle Size Impact
Evaluate performance on your app.

✓

Active Maintenance
Check for updates as of 2026.

Here is a minimal ProseMirror setup to show what the baseline looks like:

import { EditorState } from 'prosemirror-state';
import { EditorView } from 'prosemirror-view';
import { schema } from 'prosemirror-schema-basic';

const state = EditorState.create({ schema });
const view = new EditorView(document.querySelector('#editor'), { state });

That gets you a working editor. Adding marks, nodes, or commands requires more configuration. The JavaScript.info resource is helpful for brushing up on the ES module patterns ProseMirror uses heavily.

ProseMirror is a great choice for teams building products where rich text is a core feature, not an afterthought. The learning curve is real, but so is the ceiling of what you can build with it.

Tiptap: ProseMirror Without the Boilerplate

Tiptap wraps ProseMirror in a friendlier API. It works with React, Vue, and plain JavaScript. You get a headless editor core plus a library of extensions you can mix and match. The headless approach means you bring your own styles, which suits teams with design systems.

Extensions in Tiptap are composable. You can enable bold, italic, links, images, tables, and code blocks as separate packages. That keeps your bundle lean if you only need a subset of features. Disabling a feature is as simple as not importing its extension.

import { Editor } from '@tiptap/core';
import StarterKit from '@tiptap/starter-kit';

const editor = new Editor({
  element: document.querySelector('#editor'),
  extensions: [StarterKit],
  content: 'Start typing here...',
});

That starter kit bundles the most common formatting options. You are up and running in minutes rather than hours. Tiptap also has a paid collaboration tier if you need real-time multi-user editing. The free core is generous for most use cases.

One practical use case: teams building documentation tools often reach for Tiptap because it outputs clean HTML or JSON, integrates with React easily, and handles markdown shortcuts out of the box. For documentation workflows, pairing Tiptap with an online markdown editor for previewing raw markdown content is a handy combination during development.

Quill: Simple, Opinionated, and Widely Deployed

Quill has been around for a long time. It uses its own internal format called Delta to represent document state. Delta is a sequence of operations (insert, delete, retain) rather than a direct HTML tree. This makes Quill's output very predictable and easy to store.

The API is simpler than ProseMirror's. You can get a styled editor running in about ten lines of code. Quill ships with its own Snow and Bubble themes, which look reasonable out of the box. That makes it popular for projects where you want something working fast without spending time on styling.

The limitation is extensibility. Quill's plugin model (called Modules) is less flexible than Tiptap's extension system. Building complex custom blocks takes more effort. The project has also had periods of slower maintenance activity, which some teams factor into their decision. Check the GitHub activity before committing to it for a long-running project.

Quill is a solid pick for comment boxes, simple blog editors, or any context where users need basic formatting without advanced structure. If your content needs are modest, the simplicity is genuinely refreshing. You can read more about browser compatibility for the underlying APIs at Can I Use.

A Quick Quill Setup

<link href="https://cdn.quilljs.com/1.3.6/quill.snow.css" rel="stylesheet">
<div id="editor"></div>
<script src="https://cdn.quilljs.com/1.3.6/quill.js"></script>
<script>
  const quill = new Quill('#editor', {
    theme: 'snow',
    modules: {
      toolbar: ['bold', 'italic', 'link']
    }
  });
</script>

That is the entire setup for a functional editor with a toolbar. The low barrier to entry is Quill's biggest strength.

Slate.js: For Developers Who Want Full Control

Slate.js takes the most unopinionated approach of any editor on this list. It gives you the primitives to build any editing experience you can imagine. There is no default toolbar, no built-in schema, and no assumptions about your output format. Everything is a plugin.

That freedom is both the appeal and the risk. Developers who have used Slate describe a steep initial learning curve. You are essentially building your own editor on top of Slate's core, not configuring a prebuilt one. For simple use cases, that overhead is not worth it.

Rich Text Editors Comparison

Wordgard New contender with modern features

ProseMirror Highly customizable but complex

Tiptap Great for React projects

Quill Simple, easy to use

Slate.js Flexible but requires more setup

Slate shines in specialized editing contexts. Think code editors with syntax highlighting, structured data entry forms, or domain-specific writing tools. If you need your editor to behave in a way that no standard library supports, Slate is where you end up. The web.dev learning resources cover performance patterns that matter when building heavy editor experiences like Slate's.

Slate is React-only as of 2026. If you are working in Vue or a framework-agnostic context, that rules it out immediately. For React teams building complex content tools, it remains one of the most capable options available.

Side-by-Side: Picking the Right Tool

Here is a practical breakdown to help you decide. No editor wins everything. Match the tool to your actual constraints.

Code editor showing ProseMirror schema configuration with node and mark definitions

Wordgard: Best for structured, schema-controlled content where output cleanliness is critical. New but backed by serious pedigree.
ProseMirror: Best for collaborative editing or when you need maximum control at the document model level. High complexity, high ceiling.
Tiptap: Best for React and Vue projects that need a rich feature set without ProseMirror's raw complexity. Good balance of power and developer experience.
Quill: Best for simple, fast deployments where you need basic formatting. Limited extensibility but very easy to start.
Slate.js: Best for highly custom React-based editors. Maximum flexibility, maximum effort required.

Are you building a public-facing content tool? Accessibility matters a lot there. Check the W3C standards documentation for ARIA and keyboard navigation requirements. Most of these editors have varying levels of accessibility support out of the box, and you will likely need to patch gaps yourself.

One more practical note: if your editor outputs content that gets published publicly, think about how you present that content visually. Tools like a luxury thumbnail generator can help you create polished visuals to accompany published articles or documentation pages, which matters for content-heavy platforms.

Practical Tips Before You Commit

Switching editors mid-project is painful. Teams that have done it describe it as one of the more frustrating refactors possible. Here is how to avoid that situation.

First, test with your actual content types. Do not just run the demo. Create the node types and formatting your users will actually need. See how the editor handles edge cases like nested lists, table cells, or embedded media. Many limitations only appear under realistic conditions.

Second, check how the editor stores data. HTML output can be messy and hard to migrate later. JSON-based formats like ProseMirror's document model or Quill's Delta are generally cleaner to work with programmatically. If you plan to render content outside the browser (in emails, PDFs, or mobile apps), JSON output is much easier to transform.

Third, think about your documentation workflow. Most of these libraries have solid official docs, but community resources vary. If you are writing internal docs or README files for your editor integration, an online markdown editor makes drafting and previewing documentation much faster. And if you are sharing your project or docs with teammates, a free QR code generator is a quick way to share links during demos or presentations.

Do you need to support multiple languages or encodings in your editor? That question is worth asking early. Understanding how binary data and text encoding work at a lower level is useful context. A binary translator tool can help you explore encoding concepts if that part of your stack is new to you.

Finally, consider the maintenance story. Open-source libraries can stall. Look at commit frequency, issue response times, and whether the maintainers are active on the community forums. A library that was popular in 2022 but has had minimal updates since is a risk worth weighing carefully. The CSS-Tricks guides on front-end tooling often cover how to evaluate library health and long-term viability.

For teams sharing content or editor demos internally, consider using a text style generator to create visually distinct labels or banners for different editor demos in shared documents or Notion pages. Small visual cues help teammates navigate quickly.

The Bottom Line

There is no single winner among in-browser rich text editors. Wordgard is promising and built on genuine expertise. ProseMirror remains the power user's choice. Tiptap hits a sweet spot for most modern web apps. Quill wins on simplicity. Slate gives React developers unlimited flexibility at a real cost in complexity.

What matters is matching the tool to your actual project requirements, not the one with the most GitHub stars. Take the checklist from the opening section, apply it honestly to your next project, and you will make a much better call. Try building a small prototype with your top two candidates before deciding. That hour of experimentation saves weeks of regret.

Ready to start? Check out the official documentation for whichever editor catches your eye, and test it against your real content types today.