# Solid 2 vs Octane

> Source: <https://gist.github.com/aleclarson/0f4266d63fd83c7a5ea5512441bbea0c>
> Published: 2026-08-13 22:34:50+00:00

**NOTICE:** I've summarized the perspectives of Octane's and Solid's creators here, for anyone short on time: [https://gist.github.com/aleclarson/829c10aa7d287944ef75e1c2a90bef06](https://gist.github.com/aleclarson/829c10aa7d287944ef75e1c2a90bef06)

I'm a React/Preact/Astro developer with an interest in other renderers. The two that have most caught my eye recently are [Octane](https://octanejs.dev/) (from Dominic Gannaway of React Hooks / Svelte / Inferno fame) and [Solid 2](https://www.solidjs.com/blog/solid-2-0-rc-the-big-reveal).

I asked ChatGPT to compare them with its own ["Renderer DX Pillars"](https://gist.github.com/aleclarson/64308585a36fe65692149b9cd2f59475), which I've shared below. This is its gut instinct, with very little hedging:

| Pillar | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
State architecture freedom |
Solid 2 |
Reactivity is independent of components. Much less component gravity. |
Reactive reasoning |
Solid 2 |
The dependency graph is explicit and causal. Easier to answer “why did this update?” |
Derived state & synchronization |
Solid 2 |
Fine-grained derivation is the native model; less need to coordinate state manually. |
Async/data flow |
Solid 2 |
This is basically Solid 2's flagship idea. Async being part of reactivity feels deeper than improving Suspense/hooks ergonomics. |
Component authoring |
Octane |
Normal values, normal functions, familiar TSX, fewer Solid-specific semantic gotchas. |
Escape hatches |
Solid 2, narrowly |
Solid's primitives compose very directly with imperative JS without pretending everything is a component concern. |
Ecosystem interoperability |
Octane |
If its React-ecosystem compatibility ambitions work, this could be a huge advantage. |
Tooling & debuggability |
Solid 2 today |
More mature and battle-tested. Octane's compiler creates more invisible machinery that tooling has to explain well. |
Architectural scaling |
Solid 2 |
Its reactive model naturally lets domain/application architecture exist independently of rendering. |

So my gut scoreboard is:

**Solid 2: 7**
**Octane: 2**

But the two Octane wins are meaningful ones.

Its pitch seems particularly strong around:

**“I want React's authoring experience without React's runtime/design baggage.”**

You get something like:

``` js
function Counter() {
  const [count, setCount] = useState(0);
  const doubled = count * 2;

  return <button onClick={() => setCount(count + 1)}>
    {doubled}
  </button>;
}
```

That's extremely approachable.

Solid asks you to internalize:

``` js
const [count, setCount] = createSignal(0);
const doubled = () => count() * 2;
```

which isn't hard, but it is a different programming model.

So for **day-one DX**, I wouldn't be surprised if Octane feels better.

Solid's advantages seem to accumulate as the application becomes less like:

some components with state

and more like:

a complex reactive application that happens to have a UI.

That's where signals outside components, ownership, fine-grained derivation, async graph semantics, stores, and independent domain state all start reinforcing each other.

My gut says the trajectory looks something like:

```
small app

Octane  ██████████
Solid   █████████

         ↓ complexity

large/stateful app

Octane  ████████
Solid   ████████████
```

Not because Octane necessarily scales poorly, but because **Solid's abstraction seems closer to the actual problem being modeled** once state relationships get complicated.

**Escape hatches.**

Octane could easily end up winning there if its compiler makes effects, refs, subscriptions and integration code extraordinarily pleasant.

And **ecosystem interoperability could become an overwhelming Octane win** if their compatibility layer is genuinely broad and reliable rather than “we have adapters for the popular demos.”

If I had to assign confidence rather than points:

**Solid strongly wins:** state architecture, derived state, async, architectural scaling.**Solid probably wins:** reactive reasoning, escape hatches.**Octane strongly wins:** initial component authoring.**Octane probably wins:** ecosystem interoperability.**Solid wins for now:** tooling/maturity.

The biggest question I'd personally want answered before choosing between them is therefore not performance.

It's:

Does Octane's compiler actually eliminate the architectural drawbacks of component-centric reactivity, or does it mostly make that model much nicer to write?

If it's the latter, I'd expect Solid 2 to remain the stronger foundation for complex applications.