Just interested

@webdeer I really like the Apple-look-alike project you made. Is it me or does the Foundry version seem to load quicker and smoother than the Foundation version?

I have Foundation + the extra stuff Joe made but I was wondering if Foundry seems easier to work with? I don’t have Foundry yet but I like what I see and I ask you because I see that you’ve built the same project with both Foundation and Foundry https://www.webdeersign.com/pr13demo2/

Your perspective is quite important. Thanks!

@ASA I have not noticed that Foundry sites load any quicker or more smoothly than Foundation. All of the default animation timings are well though out in Foundry so you may just prefer one to the other.

Where they do differ is in load time in RW Edit and in Preview and Publish times where the Foundry version is noticeably quicker to load, edit and preview, in my experience. Project13 is an interesting test because the first design was built using nothing but Foundry and the released Foundry version of P13 is 100% Foundry. I then started to create a Foundation version but it was soon obvious that Foundation on it’s own, couldn’t build it, so had to use many BWD stacks and also S4S stacks. The Foundation version also has more stacks inside stacks inside stacks, etc., and there are very powerful stacks which have a lot of settings in there too. By contrast the Foundry version uses less stacks with less stacks settings and that translates into faster preview times, etc…

I really prefer Foundry for its speed and ease of creating a site from scratch. I find Foundry is more layout focused than Foundation which is more nuts & bolts focussed. Foundry has many simple simple stacks that create layouts such as Hero banners or Jumbotrons which all came after Foundation 5 which Foundation is based on. A good example is the Foundry Shift stack that creates the main slider at the top of the home page for Project13. It is just 1 stack with a low number of settings. To try and build that top slider section (made with Foundry Shift) in just Foundation with additional BWD stacks would be quite a challenge and need a high degree of experience.

Very interesting comparison there. I’m happy with Foundation, but had I read this first, I might have been tempted to go the Foundry route.

I am not going to get into this here. I don’t want to bring a sore looks on any other products. Both Foundation and Foundry can make great websites. You definitely have the right to your opinion. Others have completely opposite views. However, this last quote is utterly bogus…

@webdeer I’ve heard several people try both Foundation and Foundry and MANY people agree with you. I had to ask you specifically because you built a project using both and would have really good experience with them. I value your opinion greatly since you know both systems well!

@joeworkman I didn’t want to include you but you chimed in, do you know both systems well? Or just yours?

Yes. I have a copy of Foundry. We need a copy in order to help users that ask for support.

@joeworkman ok, thanks.

A lot of stuff outside the project can affect real load time. The only way I know to give an effective comparison is to look at the weight (size) of what gets loaded.
For example the project 13 home page:

Page Foundry Foundation
Home 1.3mb 1.1mb
About Us 1.6mb 2.4mb
Products 1.1mb 1.7mb

In this case, Foundry seems to have a bit lighter page weight other than the home page. Now, this doesn’t mean that Foundry is going to be faster on your project.
I have used both and can tell you that they both work well and CAN produce very nice websites. In general, I would agree that Foundry is a bit easier to learn and use. Foundation is more flexible and has more options, hence the learning curve.

You also should keep in mind that the foundry version built with “100%” Foundry included the add-on potion pack.

Both are Frameworks, so when comparing these products, look at the built-in functionality. Things like:

  • Typography
  • forms
  • buttons
  • dropdowns
  • Navigation
  • Modals
  • Carousels
    Compare these features, the whole concept of a “framework” is most of what you use is built in. It doesn’t do much good to buy into a framework and use a bunch of other stacks like a different Carousel because you don’t like the one that came with the framework. Your pages are going to be loading most of these features as part of the framework.

Thanks. I’m a very busy business owner (10 person company) and I am so busy putting out fires, getting tasks done and so on. So, although I own a copy of Foundation plus both Addon packs…I’m going to purchase @webdeer 's Project13, Foundry + Potion Pack because all I personally care about is putting a nice website together for my company QUICKLY. I do appreciate everyone’s perspectives!

1 Like

Sorry but this is not an accurate analysis of the “weight” of the individual products. The weights that you are showing is the weight of how they were designed and what other stacks were used. If we really want to split hairs, here is how I would do that test…

I exported 100% blank pages with both themes. Then measure the sizes…

Size of the entire export

  • Foundation - 1.7MB (uncompressed)
  • Foundry - 1.6MB (uncompressed)

These sizes are pretty much the same. Foundation is ~100KB heavier. However, when your web server gzips this data down to the browser, the difference is negligible. I should note that these numbers for both themes are inflated. These sizes are the size of the exported site. This includes all of the font awesome files that both these products use. This means that not all that data sent to the browser.

Size of the individual page html/css/js (basically, no theme files)

  • Foundation - 66KB (uncompressed)
  • Foundry - 111KB (uncompressed)

Almost all of Foundation’s stacks contain zero CSS and JS. The theme loads all of it. Therefore, the clients browser caches all of that when they visit the first page. This means that no matter how many Foundation stacks that you add to the page, the weight of the page is going to be super low.

I am sure that Foundry does this as well. But from my experience, the weight of its individual stacks is slightly larger than that of Foundation. This means the more stacks that you have on the page, the larger the page will be.

BUT… as I said before, we are really splitting hairs here. With browser caching and server gzipping, the size differences explained here should never even enter your thoughts in terms of comparison. One extra image on a page will make more of a difference than the size differences talked about here.

Look… If you like Foundry, great! Elixir is a wonderful designer. If you love Foundation, thank you! Who says that you can’t love both? You can surely make great amazing websites with both. Did you see the links mentioned earlier in this thread? Wow…


The major differences that I see between Foundation and Foundry is the same difference between most of the stacks that I release compared to Elixir. Elixir’s stacks are wonderfully designed with many customizations. My stacks tend to let you color outside of the lines a bit more so that you can have as much control as possible of the design. Depending on who you are, you could see either way as a feature. Neither is better. They just exist… It’s great that we have both.


I am thankful for both, as I see great websites being built - and RapidWeaver can continue to grow and glow :slight_smile:


Total CMS 1 blew my mind. I was astonished by how brilliant it is.


Thanks! Finally got your Project13 and it packs a lot, also learning for me. Was happy and impressed to find out guidelines that not only help forward but pushes to learn a whole lot new stuff -> honestly, it’s a bit an annoying but a good way :smiley:

Glad to hear you are enjoying it. I have found the the best way to learn how to build layouts with RW is to use a pre built layout and dig into the settings. I will shortly be updating the Foundry version or P13 to use Local Google fonts for GDPR compliance.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.