Thanks for the comparison! Another plus point in favour of Meta Box is that it can also be used to manage separate tables in a simplified manner. In addition, storage is generally more effective in Meta Box. Groups of data can be stored in a single table row, although I'm not sure whether this is also possible with ACF in order to create fewer table rows.
I have heard, but not confirmed, that ACF stores each custom field as 2 records in the DB. Metabox stores each custom field as 1 record. Impact is negligible when few records. Unknown at what point there is an impact.
Meta Box is a more featured rich plugin than ACF. MB having the modular features allow for a slimmer, cleaner look. ACF, there new UI is not so nice in my view. MB is less impactful on your DB as to ACF as well. If you want advanced features with ACF, well you are coded them. With MB, they have the UI to allow for that -- which was way a head of ACF. Also, ACF just introduced Post Types, which MB has been doing way before. Meta Box has functionality when it comes to relationships. It also has a better experience when building custom Gutenberg Blocks. Not to mention, MB has Views, which again trumps ACF. But in the end it is up the user on what they prefer. I have used both and have found Meta Box much better -- plus at the time, the price point was way better then ACF and still is.
@@DavidMcCan Just as an aside -- ACF Extended which adds onto ACF is a fantastic plugin and provides a wonderful experience in creating blocks as well. I wonder why ACF team has not looked at adding such features?
Thank you I've been so confused. Now I can consider deleting ACF
Thanks for the comparison! Another plus point in favour of Meta Box is that it can also be used to manage separate tables in a simplified manner. In addition, storage is generally more effective in Meta Box. Groups of data can be stored in a single table row, although I'm not sure whether this is also possible with ACF in order to create fewer table rows.
Very good analysis, thank you David.
I have heard, but not confirmed, that ACF stores each custom field as 2 records in the DB. Metabox stores each custom field as 1 record. Impact is negligible when few records. Unknown at what point there is an impact.
Probably 10k-15k records.
ACF the best ❤
You are such a neutral reviewer that I have begun to only watch the discussion and conclusion segment. Cheers!
Thank you for the compliment.
Meta Box is a more featured rich plugin than ACF. MB having the modular features allow for a slimmer, cleaner look. ACF, there new UI is not so nice in my view. MB is less impactful on your DB as to ACF as well.
If you want advanced features with ACF, well you are coded them. With MB, they have the UI to allow for that -- which was way a head of ACF. Also, ACF just introduced Post Types, which MB has been doing way before.
Meta Box has functionality when it comes to relationships. It also has a better experience when building custom Gutenberg Blocks. Not to mention, MB has Views, which again trumps ACF.
But in the end it is up the user on what they prefer. I have used both and have found Meta Box much better -- plus at the time, the price point was way better then ACF and still is.
Thank you for sharing your experience and assessment. I also found creating blocks with Meta Box to be relatively easy. I really like MB Views.
@@DavidMcCan Just as an aside -- ACF Extended which adds onto ACF is a fantastic plugin and provides a wonderful experience in creating blocks as well. I wonder why ACF team has not looked at adding such features?