Vite vs Webpack vs Turbopack: Which One Doesn't Suck?

Build tools got faster. Not "revolutionary" - just faster. Here's what I learned from actually using them in production.

Turbopack: Fast but Frustrating

I tried Turbopack on our Next.js 15 project in March. It's legitimately quick - like, stupidly fast. Our dev server went from 30 seconds to start to maybe 3-4 seconds. Hot reloads that used to take forever now happen instantly.

But here's the thing nobody tells you: you're completely locked into Next.js. Need a custom webpack plugin for some legacy bullshit? Too bad. Want to use it with React without Next.js? Good luck. It's Vercel's playground, and you're just visiting.

Oh, and it broke our CI pipeline for a week because some random dependency decided it didn't like Turbopack. Fucking brilliant. Spent hours digging through GitHub issues until I found this random thread where someone else had the exact same SVG import bullshit. Turns out it was a known Turbopack bug.

Pro tip: Turbopack randomly fails if your component filename has a number in it. Spent a morning figuring out why Button2.tsx wouldn't hot reload while Button.tsx worked fine.

Vite: The Sweet Spot

Switched three projects to Vite 5.4 this year. Dev server starts in under 2 seconds, HMR actually works, and the config doesn't make me want to quit programming.

But Vite has its own gotchas. Our Storybook integration took 6 hours to fix because of some webpack compatibility layer nonsense. And if you need some weird webpack plugin that doesn't exist for Vite? You're writing your own or going back to webpack hell.

The migration from webpack wasn't smooth - had to rewrite half our build scripts and deal with ESM import headaches for two weeks.

Webpack: Still the Enterprise Hammer

Everyone shits on webpack, but it works everywhere and handles every edge case. Our main product still runs on webpack 5.94 because it has 200+ dependencies and migrating anything breaks three other things.

Yes, it's slow. Yes, the config is a nightmare. But when you have 15 different micro-frontends with custom loaders and some plugin from 2018 that somehow still works? Webpack doesn't complain. The plugin ecosystem is massive for a reason.

The Real Performance Story

Turbopack is genuinely 10x faster than webpack for dev builds. Vite is about 3-4x faster. But speed isn't everything when Turbopack breaks your deployment pipeline or Vite can't handle your legacy code.

I learned this the hard way when our "2-day Vite migration" took 3 weeks because of CSS-in-JS compatibility issues.

Performance Reality Check

Webpack: The Devil You Know

Webpack processes everything upfront, which is why your laptop sounds like a jet engine for the first 30 seconds. But here's what nobody mentions - once it's running, the persistent cache in Webpack 5 actually makes subsequent builds pretty fast. When it doesn't randomly corrupt itself and force you to delete node_modules/.cache for the 47th time.

I've been maintaining a webpack config for 4 years now. It's 300 lines of pure sadness, but it handles:

• 15 different loaders for every file type imaginable
• Custom plugins that don't exist anywhere else
• Legacy code that breaks if you look at it wrong
• Asset optimization that actually works in production

The ecosystem is massive. Need to process .wasm files? There's a loader. Want to inline SVGs conditionally? There's a plugin. It's ugly, but it's battle-tested.

Vite: Fast Until It's Not

Vite is genuinely great for new projects. Dev server starts instantly, HMR is reliable, and the config doesn't make you question your life choices.

But I've hit these gotchas:

• CSS-in-JS Issues: Styled-components took 2 days to configure properly
• Legacy Dependencies: Some old npm packages just don't work with ESM
• Plugin Gaps: Missing webpack plugins means writing your own or finding workarounds
• Memory Usage: Large projects can actually use more RAM than webpack during dev - learned this when our 3GB React app started eating 8GB in Vite dev mode

The migration process sounds simple until you hit dependency hell. Pro tip: Budget 3x more time than you think you need.

Turbopack: Impressive but Locked Down

Turbopack is stupid fast. Like, embarrassingly fast compared to webpack. Our Next.js app went from 45-second cold starts to 4 seconds. HMR happens in milliseconds.

The problem? You're locked into Vercel's ecosystem forever:

• Only works with Next.js (for now)
• Can't use custom webpack plugins
• Edge cases still break builds
• No escape hatch when things go wrong

I spent a week debugging why our SVG imports randomly stopped working. Turned out to be a Turbopack bug that got fixed in Next.js 15.3, but we were stuck until the update.

The Performance Reality

Based on my actual testing with a ~2000 component React app:

Cold Start Times:

• Webpack: anywhere from 30 seconds to like a minute if the cache is fucked
• Vite: usually around 2-3 seconds, sometimes hits 5-6 if your machine is being stupid
• Turbopack: 3-5 seconds when it doesn't crash

HMR Speed:

• Webpack: 500ms-2s (complete shitshow, varies wildly)
• Vite: 50-200ms on good days, can spike to 500ms when it's not feeling it
• Turbopack: 10-50ms (crazy fast when it works)

Build Time (Production):

• Webpack: 2-3 minutes with optimizations, 8+ minutes if you have complex shit
• Vite: 45-90 seconds using Rollup, longer if you have tons of assets
• Turbopack: 30-60 seconds but only if you're trapped in Next.js forever

The Bottom Line on Performance

The numbers don't tell the whole story though. Webpack might be slow, but it's predictable. Vite is fast but can surprise you. Turbopack is fastest but might trap you.