gum vs lipgloss

Terminal styling and interactive workflows compared

gum provides ready-to-use interactive prompts and styled output for shell scripts. lipgloss is a Go library for styling and arranging terminal content in applications, so the main difference is gum’s shell-focused components versus lipgloss’s reusable rendering tools for Go developers.

gumlipgloss
LanguageGoGo
LicenseMITMIT
Stars24.5k11.9k
Forks554402
Last analyzedOct 3, 2026Oct 3, 2026

Key differences

  • gum offers interactive commands for input, selection, confirmation, file browsing, and spinners; lipgloss focuses on styling, text measurement, and layout.
  • gum is designed to be composed into shell scripts without writing a Go application; lipgloss is a library used from Go programs.
  • gum supports styled output alongside interactive workflows, while lipgloss provides reusable styles and components such as tables, lists, and trees.
  • lipgloss adapts color output to terminal capabilities and handles redirected output; gum’s supplied details emphasize user-driven terminal interactions.
  • Both projects are written in Go and use the MIT license.
  • gum has 24.5k stars and 554 forks; lipgloss has 11.9k stars and 402 forks.

Choose gum if you…

  • build interactive shell workflows without implementing terminal interfaces in Go.
  • gather input, filter choices, or confirm actions in user-driven scripts.
  • add menus, prompts, or styled output to local command-line tasks.
Read the gum analysis →

Choose lipgloss if you…

  • build Go command-line tools with reusable terminal styles and layouts.
  • format terminal output across different color capabilities or redirected output.
  • create tables, lists, trees, or styled views, especially alongside Bubble Tea.
Read the lipgloss analysis →

Compare the numbers side by side, or add more projects

This comparison is generated with AI from the OSRepos analyses of both projects. Always check each project's repository and documentation before choosing.