{"id":11705,"date":"2023-09-12T12:00:17","date_gmt":"2023-09-12T09:00:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dhtmlx.com\/blog\/?p=11705"},"modified":"2026-09-22T13:06:06","modified_gmt":"2026-09-22T10:06:06","slug":"fast-and-light-alternative-to-bryntum-gantt","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dhtmlx.com\/blog\/fast-and-light-alternative-to-bryntum-gantt\/","title":{"rendered":"Fast and Light Alternative to Bryntum Gantt in 2026"},"content":{"rendered":"

Updated on September 22, 2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

Success is often built on a series of right choices. In web development, it often comes down to choosing the right tools for your technology stack, which often becomes a real challenge. The complexity of such a choice is clearly visible in the segment of project management software, where dev teams often struggle to pick proper, complex JavaScript Gantt chart components for covering various planning and scheduling needs. In recent years, one of the most intense competitions in this field has been DHTMLX Gantt<\/a> vs Bryntum Gantt<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In this article, we will compare these two popular web components for adding Gantt charts to project management solutions. Both components have a long history in the market of JS tools. Let us consider how they differ and see why DHTMLX is a great alternative to Bryntum.<\/p>\n\n\t\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t
Ready to switch to a faster alternative to Bryntum Gantt?<\/div>\n\t\t
Our migration guide helps ensure a smooth transition to DHTMLX Gantt<\/div>\n <\/div>\n\t\t \n \n
\n Migrate Now<\/a>\n <\/div>\n \n <\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\n

DHTMLX Loads 100,000 Tasks in 1 Second While Bryntum Takes Nearly a Minute<\/h2>\n

When it comes to managing large projects with thousands of tasks, the performance of your Gantt chart plays a crucial role. In this section, we\u2019ll consider the results of the latest Gantt performance benchmark. It includes test scenarios for key performance metrics: browser memory consumption, scrolling, task loading, and editing. Across workloads from 1,000 to 100,000 tasks, we can note the same recurring pattern: DHTMLX Gantt loads and responds to user edits faster and retains less JavaScript heap than Bryntum Gantt, with DHTMLX’s advantage becoming more pronounced as task count grows.<\/p>\n

The benchmark compares DHTMLX v10.0.3 and Bryntum Gantt v7.3.6, along with three other JavaScript Gantt components. Apart from five different dataset sizes (1,000, 5,000, 10,000, 50,000, and 100,000 tasks), test configurations also include two data structures (a flat dependency chain and a four-level project tree) and auto-scheduling mode (enabled\/disabled). Below, we pay special attention to scenarios with 100,000-project-tree tasks and auto-scheduling on\/off, which are the most illustrative of how both Gantt components handle extreme, enterprise-level workloads in memory usage, scrolling, loading, and editing. <\/p>\n

JavaScript Heap Usage<\/h3>\n

This is a metric worth paying attention to whenever you’re evaluating data-heavy UI components. Excessive memory consumption slows down the running app and causes inconvenience for end-users. The benchmark measures retained heap after loading and a forced garbage collection pass. It doesn’t include DOM memory, and it isn’t a measure of total browser RAM or download package size.<\/p>\n

DHTMLX Gantt shows more rational memory usage even with small amounts of data, but end-users will hardly notice the difference with such loads. The situation may change drastically when talking about thousands of tasks. <\/p>\n

\"memory<\/p>\n

On the 100,000-task project tree with auto-scheduling disabled, DHTMLX retains 63 MB of JavaScript heap versus Bryntum’s 3,033 MB (about 98% less for DHTMLX).<\/p>\n

Turn auto-scheduling on for the same 100,000-task project tree, and DHTMLX needs 181 MB versus Bryntum’s 3,130 MB. The overall advantage of DHTMLX over Bryntum remains significant in both scheduling modes.
\n\"Memory<\/p>\n

In practice, it means that DHTMLX leaves more memory resources for the other functionalities included in the app. <\/p>\n

FPS (Scrolling Gantt charts)<\/h3>\n

The FPS parameter measures how smoothly frames render while scrolling. Across the scripted scroll test (project trees from 1,000 to 100,000 tasks, auto-scheduling both on and off), DHTMLX holds a steady 60 FPS, while Bryntum lands in the 58-60 FPS range. With both components reaching or staying close to 60 FPS, which is the limit of the reference display, their scrolling performance is essentially comparable.<\/p>\n

Tasks Loading and Editing<\/h3>\n

Finally, we come to the most interesting part of the performance benchmark analysis, where we can answer two questions on Gantt performance that matter most in real-world applications.<\/p>\n

First is the question of load time: how long it takes to load and render tasks in each Gantt chart, with and without auto-scheduling. This is what tells you whether a component can keep up with your data volume, and whether that speed will actually work for your project.<\/p>\n

The benchmark’s main loading metric is Time to Ready (TTR). It ends once the Gantt chart becomes fully operational. Time to First Paint (TTFP) is different: it ends the moment the first frame with rows appears on the screen.<\/p>\n

At 100,000 tasks with auto-scheduling disabled, DHTMLX completes the TTR test in 1 second, compared with 53.5 seconds for Bryntum. The chart below places this largest workload result alongside the four smaller project-tree sizes for context.<\/p>\n

\"Time<\/p>\n

The TTFP test shows a slightly different picture under the same conditions. DHTMLX still needs only 1 second to start displaying a Gantt chart with a 100,000-task project tree and auto-scheduling off, versus Bryntum\u2019s 4.9 seconds. Although Bryntum reaches the TTFP milestone much earlier than its TTR result, it doesn’t change the fact that you still have to wait almost a minute before the chart becomes fully interactive.<\/p>\n

\"TTFP<\/p>\n

With DHTMLX Gantt, the wait time for users in TTR tests remains short at 100,000 project-tree-tasks even when the auto-scheduling mode is enabled: it reaches the ready state in 2.4 seconds, while Bryntum Gantt needs 61.8 seconds.<\/p>\n

\"TTR<\/p>\n

The flat-chain workload makes a separate point: task count alone doesn’t predict performance. With auto-scheduling enabled at 100,000 tasks, DHTMLX posts a TTR of 2.2 seconds, while Bryntum exceeds the five-minute loading limit entirely.
\n\"TTR<\/p>\n

Once the Gantt chart is fully loaded and operational, the next question that matters is how fast it responds to user actions. That\u2019s where the role of auto-scheduling is especially noticeable, since it has to adjust the rest of the schedule affected by user-initiated edits. So it is reasonable to concentrate on testing scenarios where auto-scheduling is enabled.<\/p>\n

Let\u2019s start with a basic task rescheduling with drag-and-drop. On the 100,000-task project tree with auto-scheduling enabled, DHTMLX processes a single-task move and updates the chart in just 1 second, while Bryntum requires 49.7 seconds for the same operation.<\/p>\n

\"moving<\/p>\n

What happens when both Gantt components with the same configurations (100,000-task project tree with auto-scheduling enabled) are subjected to a bulk edit comprising 100 task updates, 100 deletions, and 100 insertions? Not much change for DHTMLX Gantt, which completes the test in 1.1 seconds. Bryntum’s browser tab crashes in all three runs of that test.<\/p>\n

\"bulk<\/p>\n

Taken together, the loading and editing results show that DHTMLX Gantt keeps the Gantt UI responsive when working with large workloads of up to 100, 000 tasks and auto-scheduling enabled, from the moment of the initial load to user edits in the schedule.<\/p>\n

Bear in mind that the results of these tests heavily depend on the resources of the computer being used. For performance testing of both Gantt components, we used a computer with the following technical characteristics:<\/p>\n