I don't think the person/people who wrote these comparisons has much experience working with the frameworks and libraries they are comparing with. The compariso

I don't think the person/people who wrote these comparisons has much experience working with the frameworks and libraries they are comparing with. The comparison with Polymer sounds very strange to me as a Polymer developer. They start off saying Polymer is based on web standards, where Vue implements it's own system. They consider this favorable for Vue, because on -some- older browsers Polymer needs a polyfill to work. This makes no sense. The idea is that in modern browsers Polymer leverages the browser implementation of custom elements so it needs to do way less work. They completely ignore the fact that the Vue implementation needs to do work to implement encapsulation on every browser, even modern ones. One of their points is that Polymer is stuck with plain CSS and JS, which is clearly not true, considering TypeScript and ES6 are the most common JS flavors in the Polymer ecosystem. You can use any CSS and JS framework or preprocessor you want with Polymer, you just have to tweak your build pipeline a bit. And then at the end they claim 'It is also totally feasible to offer deeper integration between Vue with Web Component specs', except that it hasn't been implemented yet and they are waiting for the spec to mature (even though all major browser vendors have committed to the Web Component v1 spec). So if something is technically (remotely) possible to do with Vue, it's worth mentioning as an advantage of Vue, but if something doesn't come out of the box with Polymer it's clearly worth mentioning as a negative? I don't have any experience with the other frameworks in this comparison, but after reading the Polymer snippet I don't believe in the objectivity of any of these comparisons.