CanvasGlobe vs globe.gl
The choice between CanvasGlobe and globe.gl is mainly a choice between a self-contained Canvas 2D component and a Three.js/WebGL 3D scene.
| Requirement | CanvasGlobe | globe.gl |
|---|---|---|
| Renderer | Canvas 2D | Three.js and WebGL |
| Best fit | Product visuals, dashboards, globe plus flat map, export | Rich 3D globe data layers and custom objects |
| Globe and flat map from one API | Yes | Globe-focused |
| 3D objects and materials | No | Yes |
| Terrain or 3D Tiles | No | No, consider Cesium |
| Points, arcs, labels | Yes | Yes, with more 3D layer choices |
| Country choropleths | Yes | Yes through polygon layers |
| Required map service | No | No for the core library; chosen assets may require requests |
| Built-in CSV and social export helpers | Yes | Bring your own workflow |
Choose globe.gl when
- objects need real depth, perspective, lighting, or custom materials;
- the application already uses Three.js;
- you need its polygon, path, heatmap, particle, tile, HTML, or custom layers;
- GPU-scale rendering is more important than a no-WebGL path.
Choose CanvasGlobe when
- Canvas 2D is a requirement;
- no required runtime request is desirable;
- flat and globe views must share the same markers and arcs;
- browser-side image and video output is part of the product;
- the use case is a landing page, report, status board, customer map, or share graphic.
Both can render attractive globes. The correct decision depends on whether the globe is a 3D scene or a focused geographic component.
Primary references: globe.gl documentation, CanvasGlobe examples, and performance guidance.
Last reviewed: September 2026.