From Hottest to Obsolete: A Critical Review of 13 Java Web Frameworks

Evaluation Dimensions

Performance : throughput, response time, resource usage

Ecosystem Maturity : community activity, documentation quality, third‑party library support

Learning Curve : onboarding difficulty, conceptual complexity

Development Efficiency : code volume, development speed, maintenance cost

Enterprise Adoption : market share, usage by large companies

Innovation : technical advancement, architectural ideas

夯 (Top‑Tier, Hard Currency)

Spring Boot

Reason : dominant Java web framework; Azul “State of Java 2025” reports 42% usage among microservice frameworks

Advantages : convention‑over‑configuration, auto‑configuration, Spring Cloud ecosystem, extensive documentation, easy hiring

Applicable Scenarios : enterprise applications, microservice architectures, any situation requiring stability

Objective Data : 79 k+ GitHub stars; 150 650 Stack Overflow questions tagged

spring-boot

顶级 (First‑Line Combat Power)

Quarkus

Reason : cloud‑native era flagship with superior startup speed and memory usage

Advantages : native GraalVM support, millisecond‑level cold start, container‑friendly, developer experience close to Spring Boot

Applicable Scenarios : Kubernetes, serverless, microservices, performance‑critical workloads

Objective Data : native startup 0.049 s vs Spring Boot JVM 1.909 s; max RSS 70.5 MB vs 388.9 MB (≈82 % reduction)

Micronaut

Reason : compile‑time dependency injection eliminates reflection overhead

Advantages : fast startup, low memory, GraalVM support, reactive‑friendly

Applicable Scenarios : microservices, cloud‑native applications, performance‑sensitive environments

Objective Data : JVM startup 0.656 s vs Spring Boot JVM 1.909 s (≈2.9× faster); max RSS 253.2 MB vs 388.9 MB (≈35 % lower)

Vert.x

Reason : asynchronous, non‑blocking framework excelling in high‑concurrency scenarios

Advantages : event‑driven, Reactor model, extreme performance, multi‑language support

Applicable Scenarios : high‑concurrency, real‑time systems, WebSocket, IoT

Objective Data : continuously listed in TechEmpower Framework Benchmarks (e.g., vertx/, vertx-web/)

人上人 (Distinctive, Stand‑Out)

Helidon

Reason : Oracle‑backed MicroProfile implementation, lightweight microservice framework

Advantages : modular design, reactive support, GraalVM native images, well‑structured documentation

Applicable Scenarios : microservices, cloud‑native, teams preferring standards

Market Position : less known than top‑tier frameworks but technically solid

Javalin

Reason : minimalist framework usable with both Kotlin and Java

Advantages : gentle learning curve, concise code, decent performance, suited for small projects

Applicable Scenarios : RESTful APIs, prototyping, teaching projects

Positioning : similar to Node.js Express but with a smaller ecosystem

Dropwizard

Reason : veteran microservice framework integrating Jetty, Jersey, Jackson and other mature components

Advantages : out‑of‑the‑box, ops‑friendly (built‑in metrics), stable and reliable

Applicable Scenarios : RESTful services, projects needing rapid launch

Current Status : once prominent, now squeezed by Spring Boot and newer entrants

NPC (Usable but Unremarkable)

Play Framework

Reason : dual‑stack Scala/Java, reactive architecture, low visibility in the Java ecosystem

Advantages : asynchronous, hot‑reload, REST‑friendly

Disadvantages : steep learning curve, less active community, primarily used by Scala developers

Grails

Reason : full‑stack framework based on Groovy, convention over configuration

Advantages : rapid development, good for quick prototypes

Disadvantages : Groovy niche, average performance, low enterprise adoption

Current Status : largely replaced by Spring Boot

Apache Wicket

Reason : component‑based web framework with an object‑oriented mindset

Advantages : no need for JavaScript, suitable for traditional Java developers

Disadvantages : monolithic approach, scarce learning resources

Current Status : maintained but rarely chosen for new projects

拉完了 (Left Behind)

Struts 2

Reason : former champion now considered legacy

Disadvantages : frequent security vulnerabilities, outdated architecture, stagnant community

Current Status : only maintained in legacy projects; new projects should avoid

JSF (JavaServer Faces)

Reason : part of the Java EE standard but offers a poor developer experience

Disadvantages : heavyweight, low development efficiency, tight front‑back coupling

Current Status : virtually unused except in some old government or banking systems

Native Servlet + JSP

Reason : raw technology stack, hand‑crafted

Disadvantages : everything must be written manually, extremely low productivity, hard to maintain

Current Status : suitable only for teaching or interview demos