WebGL, Three.js, Framer Motion : When and How to Use Them ?

Your agency proposes "Three.js animations." Your designer wants "Framer Motion everywhere." A developer mentions "native WebGL for performance." Three technologies. Three pitches. And you just want a site that impresses your visitors without blowing your budget.

The problem : 90% of agencies use these terms interchangeably. They sell Three.js where Framer Motion would suffice. Or worse, they slap on Framer Motion where only WebGL would hold up. The result ? Slow sites, wasted budgets, and technical compromises that cost you for years.

Today, we're setting the record straight. Not a developer tutorial. A strategic guide for decision-makers who want to understand what they're buying and why.

Before talking strategy, let's lay the groundwork. These three technologies operate at radically different levels of abstraction. Understanding this hierarchy means understanding 80% of the decisions ahead.

WebGL : The Engine

WebGL (Web Graphics Library) is a JavaScript API that talks directly to your device's GPU (graphics processor). It's the lowest level : you control every pixel, every vertex, every shader. It's the technology behind Google Earth, browser-based video games, and complex data visualizations.

Analogy : WebGL is the assembly language of the visual web. Powerful, unlimited, but building an entire site in raw WebGL is like constructing a house by carving each brick by hand.

Three.js : The 3D Toolkit

Three.js is a JavaScript library that simplifies WebGL. Instead of writing hundreds of lines of code to display a cube, Three.js lets you do it in 10 lines. It handles cameras, lights, materials, shadows, and animations, all powered by WebGL under the hood.

Three.js is the architect that uses the WebGL engine. Over 80% of 3D web experiences use Three.js (source : Three.js GitHub), including the most awarded sites on Awwwards.

Framer Motion : The Interface Animator

Framer Motion is an animation library for React. Its domain : user interface animations. Page transitions, element appearances, hover effects, scroll animations, drag & drop. No 3D. No GPU. Pure DOM, animated with elegant syntax and optimized performance.

Framer Motion is the interior designer. It doesn't build the structure—it makes every room remarkable.

Technical comparison of the three web animation technologies

The critical takeaway from this table : these tools aren't competing. They operate at different levels. Comparing Three.js and Framer Motion is like comparing a Formula 1 engine and a suspension system. Both are essential, but for radically different functions.

If your site is built with React (Next.js, Remix, Gatsby), Framer Motion should be your first instinct. Not by default. By logic.

What Framer Motion Does Excellently

The Decisive Advantage : Quality-to-Cost Ratio

Framer Motion is the technology that delivers the best visual return per dollar invested. A competent React developer can implement a complete system of micro-interactions and page transitions in 2 to 5 days. The same result in Three.js or WebGL would take 3 to 4 weeks and cost 5x more.

For a showcase site, a SaaS, a portfolio, a landing page : Framer Motion covers 80% of animation needs at 20% of the budget of a 3D solution.

When Framer Motion Hits Its Limits

Framer Motion animates the DOM (your page's HTML elements). This means it cannot :

If your needs include any of these, you're entering Three.js territory.

Three.js is the right answer when you want your visitor to stop looking at your site and start exploring it.

Use Cases That Justify Three.js

1. Physical product showcase. Selling an object ? Let the visitor rotate it, zoom into details, change colors in real time. A 3D configurator is worth 10 catalog photos. Porsche, Nike, and Apple all use this approach for their flagship products.

2. Immersive storytelling. Your brand has a complex story to tell ? A 3D narrative journey, where scrolling guides the visitor through an environment, creates 6x greater memorability than a classic text-and-image journey (source : Psychological Science).

3. Complex data visualization. If your data is multidimensional (geographic, temporal, relational), an interactive 3D visualization communicates in 5 seconds what a table of numbers can't convey in 5 minutes.

4. Tech positioning marker. Companies like Linear and Stripe use Three.js for a single purpose : to prove they're technically superior. Linear's animated header doesn't sell anything directly. It communicates an identity. And that identity attracts the most demanding clients.

The Real Cost of a Three.js Integration

Let's be transparent. Three.js is a significant investment :

Expect an investment 3 to 5x higher than a Framer Motion integration for equivalent visual impact. The question isn't "is Three.js better." It's : "does my project justify this investment ?"

Using raw WebGL in 2026 is like writing a site in assembly when everyone else codes in JavaScript. It's rarely necessary. But when it is, nothing else will do.

The (Rare) Cases Where Native WebGL Is Required

Advanced custom shaders. Shaders are programs that run directly on the GPU. They enable visual effects impossible to achieve otherwise : fluid deformations, physics simulations, cinematic post-processing effects. Three.js supports shaders, but some effects demand finer control than Three.js exposes.

Performance-critical massive volumes. When you need to display 500,000+ particles in real time, or simulate complex physical systems (fluids, cloth, smoke), every abstraction layer costs milliseconds. On a project where every frame must render in 16ms (60 FPS), Three.js's overhead can become a problem.

Artistic and creative experiences. Creative studios competing at the Awwwards or the FWA sometimes push the web to its absolute limits. These projects are digital artworks as much as websites, and native WebGL gives them total creative freedom.

The Reality for 95% of Projects

If you're reading this article as a decision-maker, you probably don't need native WebGL. Three.js covers 95% of 3D web needs with incomparably higher productivity. A vendor selling you "custom WebGL" without precisely justifying why Three.js isn't sufficient is either misinformed or inflating the bill.

Here's the method we use internally for every project. It works in 4 questions :

Question 1 : Do you need interactive 3D ?
A 3D object visitors can manipulate, an environment to explore, a product configurator ?
=> No: Framer Motion. End of discussion.
=> Yes: move to question 2.

Question 2 : Is your 3D scene "standard" ?
A product to rotate, decorative particles, a simple environment ?
=> Yes: Three.js. It's the right tool.
=> No: move to question 3.

Question 3 : Do you need custom GPU shaders ?
Unique visual effects impossible to replicate with standard Three.js materials ?
=> No: Three.js with integrated GLSL shaders. Three.js supports this natively.
=> Yes: Native WebGL (or Three.js + custom shaders) depending on the level of control required.

Question 4 : Both ?
A complete site with elegant transitions AND a spectacular 3D element ?
=> Framer Motion + Three.js together. It's the most powerful combination in modern web. Framer Motion handles the interface, Three.js handles the 3D elements. Each does what it does best.

Mistake 1 : Using Three.js for interface animations. Animating a button with Three.js is like using a rocket launcher to open a door. It works, but the cost is absurd and performance collapses. If you're not displaying 3D, Framer Motion (or even CSS) is the right answer.

Mistake 2 : Ignoring mobile from the design phase. A Three.js site running at 60 FPS on a MacBook Pro might show 15 FPS on an iPhone 12. 65% of web traffic is mobile (source : StatCounter Global Stats). If your 3D experience isn't mobile-first from day 1, you're delivering a degraded experience to the majority of your visitors.

Mistake 3 : Loading the 3D scene before content. The classic error : the visitor waits 6 seconds watching a loader while the Three.js scene prepares. In 2026, 53% of visitors leave a page that takes more than 3 seconds to load (source : Google Web Vitals). 3D must load progressively, after the main content.

Mistake 4 : Not planning a fallback. Old browsers, disabled GPU, battery saver mode, slow connection : your visitor won't always see the spectacular version. A robust site detects device capabilities and serves an adapted version. No 3D on an old phone ? An elegant static image is better than a crash.

Mistake 5 : Animating for the sake of it. If an animation doesn't serve a business objective (guide attention, create emotion, facilitate understanding), remove it. The world's most awarded websites share one trait : every animation has a reason to exist. The most criticized ones share another : every animation doesn't.

Let's talk money. Here's the reality of investment by approach :

Indicative budget and timeline by technical approach

These ranges are indicative and depend on project complexity, number of pages, and expected level of polish. But they illustrate an essential point : technology choice has a direct and massive impact on budget. Choosing the wrong technology can triple your investment without tripling the result.

Web animation technologies are a competence revealer. Here are the questions that separate an expert vendor from a generalist :

If you take away one thing from this article, let it be this :

The trap is starting with technology. "We want Three.js" is not a brief. "We want our visitors to configure our product in 3D to increase conversions by 30%" is one.

WebGL, Three.js, and Framer Motion aren't selling points. They're instruments. And like any instrument, their value depends entirely on the score being played and the musician holding them.

The best website isn't the one using the most advanced technology. It's the one using the right technology, in the right place, for the right objective. And that isn't a technical decision. It's a strategic one.