Important Dependency Note
React Table Library requires @emotion/react (CSS-in-JS library) as a peer dependency. This adds ~10-15KB to your bundle. Effective total: ~38-43KB vs Simple Table's 42KB standalone.
You're evaluating React table libraries and found React Table Library by Robin Wieruch (21.5k weekly downloads, 794 GitHub stars). It's an "almost headless" table library emphasizing composition, plugin-based features, and server-side operations. Created in 2020, it positions itself as a middle ground between heavyweight (MUI X) and pure headless (TanStack Table) solutions.
React Table Library uses a plugin architecture. Core features like sorting, filtering, pagination, selection, and tree tables are available as separate hooks (useSort, useFilter, etc.). You compose them together with base table components (CompactTable, Table, Header, Body, Row, Cell). This gives flexibility but requires more setup than opinionated libraries.
Simple Table takes the opposite approach: all features are built-in and enabled via props. No CSS-in-JS dependency required. It's batteries-included rather than headless. If you're comparing headless options, see our TanStack Table comparison.
This comparison explores when React Table Library's composability is worth the complexity, and when Simple Table's integrated approach saves time. We'll look at bundle size, feature parity, developer experience, and real-world use cases.
Quick Comparison at a Glance
| Criteria | React Table Library | Simple Table |
|---|---|---|
| License | MIT (Free) | MIT (Free) |
| Bundle Size (min+gzip) | 28 kB* | 42 kB |
| Dependencies | Requires @emotion/react (~10-15KB) | Zero dependencies |
| Weekly Downloads | 21.5k | Growing |
| Last Updated | 9 months ago | Active (2026) |
| Architecture | Almost headless (plugins) | Batteries-included |
| Best For | Composability, server-side ops | Fast setup, built-in features |
Bundle Size: Nearly Identical After Dependencies
React Table Library's core is ~28KB min+gzipped, but it requires @emotion/react as a peer dependency, adding ~10-15KB. Effective total: ~38-43KB. Simple Table is 42KB standalone with zero dependencies. Bundle sizes are nearly identical.
True Bundle Size Comparison
Size difference: Negligible (~2-4 KB) — Bundle size is not a deciding factor. Choose based on architecture preference (headless vs integrated).
Emotion CSS-in-JS Consideration
If your app already uses Emotion (e.g., Material-UI v5, Chakra UI), React Table Library adds no extra dependency cost. If you don't use Emotion elsewhere, you're adding a CSS-in-JS library for one component—consider whether that's worth it.
Feature Comparison: Plugins vs Built-In
React Table Library provides features as composable plugins (hooks). Simple Table includes them built-in. Both cover similar use cases with different APIs:
| Feature | React Table Library | Simple Table |
|---|---|---|
| Core Table Features | ||
| Sorting | ✓ useSort | ✓ |
| Filtering | ✓ Manual/useFilter | ✓ |
| Pagination | ✓ usePagination | ✓ |
| Row Selection | ✓ useRowSelect | ✓ |
| Search | ✓ Manual | ✓ Coming soon |
| Tree Tables | ✓ useTree | ✓ Nested rows |
| Advanced Features | ||
| Column Resizing | ✓ useResize | ✓ |
| Column Pinning | △ "Fixed columns" | ✓ |
| Row Grouping | ✗ | ✓ |
| Virtualization | ✗ Manual integration | ✓ Built-in |
| Multi-Column Sort | ✗ Single | ✓ |
| Customization & Theming | ||
| Built-in Themes | ✓ CompactTable | ✓ Default theme |
| Custom Styling | ✓ Emotion CSS | ✓ CSS-in-JS |
| TypeScript | ✓ Excellent | ✓ Excellent |
Key difference: React Table Library requires manual composition (import hooks, wire them together). Simple Table enables features via props. Both work well—choose based on whether you prefer explicit composition or convenience.
Developer Experience: Composability vs Convenience
React Table Library and Simple Table take opposite approaches to API design:
React Table Library: Composable Plugins
- Plugin-based: Import hooks for features you need (useSort, useRowSelect)
- Component composition: Build tables from primitives (Table, Header, Body, Row, Cell)
- Server-side first: Designed for remote data fetching patterns
- More setup code: Each feature requires hook import and wiring
- Learning curve: Must understand plugin system and composition
Simple Table: Batteries-Included
- Single component: All features accessed via props (no plugins to wire)
- Fast setup: Enable sorting with
sortableprop, not hooks - Shallow learning curve: Props-based API similar to standard React components
- Server-side support: Controlled state via callbacks for remote data
- Less granular control: Features are pre-integrated (tradeoff for convenience)
Which API Style Do You Prefer?
React Table Library: Better if you want explicit control and enjoy composing features manually. Like building with LEGO blocks. Simple Table: Better if you want to enable features quickly with minimal boilerplate. Like using a Swiss Army knife.
Decision Framework: Composability vs Convenience
Choose React Table Library When:
- You prefer headless/composable architecture (like TanStack Table)
- Already using Emotion CSS-in-JS (no extra dependency cost)
- Want to cherry-pick features (only include what you use)
- Building server-side data fetching patterns (pagination, filtering on backend)
- Don't need virtualization or row grouping
Choose Simple Table When:
- You want fast setup with minimal boilerplate
- Need zero dependencies (no CSS-in-JS required)
- Require virtualization for large datasets (10k+ rows)
- Want row grouping or multi-column sort
- Prefer props-based API over hook composition
Real-World Scenarios
Scenario 1: Blog Admin with Server-Side Pagination
Context: Display 10k blog posts with server-side pagination, sorting, and search. Fetch data from API on page change.
React Table Library
Excellent fit. usePagination and useSort hooks work seamlessly with server-side data. Composable approach lets you wire API calls cleanly.
Simple Table
Also works well. Controlled state via onPaginationChange and onSortChange callbacks. Props-based API is slightly more concise.
Scenario 2: Financial Dashboard with 100k Rows
Context: Display transaction data with virtualized scrolling, row grouping by category, pinned summary columns.
React Table Library
Not ideal. No built-in virtualization or row grouping. You'd need to integrate a third-party virtualization library manually.
Simple Table
Perfect fit. Built-in virtualization handles 100k rows smoothly. Row grouping and column pinning included. See our 1M row guide.
Scenario 3: Custom Design System Table
Context: Build a highly customized table matching your brand with unique styling, animations, and interactions.
React Table Library
Great choice. Component-based architecture (Table, Row, Cell) gives full control over rendering. Emotion styling is flexible.
Simple Table
Also customizable. CSS-in-JS via cellStyle and headerStyle props. Custom cell renderers for complex layouts.
The Verdict: Choose Based on Architecture Preference
React Table Library and Simple Table are nearly identical in bundle size (~38-43KB vs 42KB) but diverge in philosophy:
React Table Library: Headless Composability
- ✓ Plugin-based hooks (useSort, usePagination, etc.)
- ✓ Component primitives for full rendering control
- ✓ Server-side operations as first-class citizens
- ✓ Cherry-pick features (smaller bundle if you use few)
- △ Requires @emotion/react dependency (~10-15KB)
- ✗ No virtualization or row grouping built-in
- ✗ More boilerplate code to wire features
Simple Table: Batteries-Included Convenience
- ✓ All features built-in (enable via props)
- ✓ Zero dependencies (no CSS-in-JS required)
- ✓ Built-in virtualization, row grouping, column pinning
- ✓ Faster setup (minimal boilerplate)
- ✓ Props-based API (familiar to React developers)
- ✓ Actively maintained (2026)
- △ Less granular control over feature composition
Our recommendation: If you value composability and already use Emotion, React Table Library is a solid choice for server-side-heavy apps. But for most use cases—especially with large datasets or when you want minimal dependencies—Simple Table's integrated approach saves time while delivering more features (virtualization, grouping, pinning).
If you're comparing headless options, see our TanStack Table comparison. For fully-featured UI library tables, check out Material React Table or our complete guide to free React data grids.