Comparison Table: WebGL vs. glTF vs. X3D

Author(s): 
Anita Havele
Release Date: 
1 May 2027
Tags: 
comparison table

 

Comparison Table (May 1, 2025): WebGL vs. glTF vs. X3D
        
         
Feature / Aspect WebGL glTF X3D (v3.3–v4)  
What it is Low‑level JavaScript API for GPU rendering in browsers Runtime‑neutral 3D asset transmission format (“JPEG of 3D”) ISO-standard declarative 3D scene graph language  
Primary Role Rendering engine Compact delivery of models & materials Full interactive scene description, behaviors, events  
Specification Owner Khronos Group Khronos Group Web3D Consortium (ISO/IEC 19775/19776)  
Typical Use Custom engines, shaders, procedural graphics Delivering models to engines (WebGL, WebGPU, Unity, Unreal) Authoring complete scenes, interactions, metadata, multi‑modal integration  
Level of Abstraction Very low-level (imperative) Mid-level (assets only) High-level (declarative scene graph)  
Interactivity Must be coded manually None (depends on host engine) Built-in event model, routing, sensors, scripting  
Animation Support Via custom code Yes (skinning, morphing) Yes (keyframe, interpolation, sensors, scripting)  
Materials & PBR Custom shaders Strong PBR (glTF 2.0) PBR in X3D v4 (via glTF integration and native nodes)  
Extensibility Via JS + shaders Extensions ecosystem Profiles, components, prototypes, scripting  
Runtime Requirements Browser with WebGL Any engine that loads glTF X3D browser or JS library (X_ITE, X3DOM)  
Integration with Web Manual DOM integration None Native HTML5 integration in X3D v4  
File Format Not a format .gltf / .glb .x3d / .x3dz / .x3dv  
Compression N/A Draco, meshopt X3D Compressed Binary Encoding  
Best For Custom engines, high-performance rendering Efficient model delivery Rich interactive scenes, metadata, multi‑node ecosystems  
Ecosystem Examples Three.js, Babylon.js All major engines X_ITE, X3DOM, ISO-compliant tools  
Interoperability Foundation layer for many engines Often embedded inside X3D scenes Can host glTF models directly (X3D v4)