Comparison

UGUI vs UI Toolkit vs Loom: choosing a Unity UI system

Unity ships two UI systems, and Loom adds a third built on real web technology. Here is how UGUI, UI Toolkit and Loom differ — and when each one is the right call.

Updated May 2026

Unity has two built-in UI systems — UGUI and UI Toolkit — and Loom is a third option that runs real HTML, CSS and TypeScript. In short: UGUI is the mature, GameObject-based system that suits world-space UI and existing projects; UI Toolkit is Unity's newer, web-inspired system; and Loom runs an actual browser engine inside Unity for teams who want the real web stack. They differ most in workflow, ecosystem and cost.

UGUI — the original Unity UI

UGUI, often just called Unity UI, has been Unity's UI system since 2014. It is built from GameObjects and Canvases, and you assemble it visually in the Scene view.

Its strengths are maturity and reach: every Unity tutorial, asset and forum answer assumes it, the Asset Store is full of ready-made UGUI components, and it handles world-space UI — interfaces placed in the 3D scene — naturally. Its weaknesses show on complex UI. A detailed screen becomes a deep tree of GameObjects, canvas rebuilds can cost performance when the UI is large or changes often, and data-heavy interfaces take a lot of manual wiring. UGUI is a safe choice for small projects and the obvious choice for existing UGUI codebases.

UI Toolkit — Unity's newer system

UI Toolkit is Unity's more recent UI system. It is retained-mode, uses UXML for structure and USS for styling, and was deliberately modelled on the web.

It uses one styling system across editor and runtime UI, suits complex, data-driven interfaces better than UGUI, and is Unity's strategic direction, so investment continues. The trade-offs: USS is a subset of CSS and UXML is an XML dialect rather than HTML, there is a real learning curve, logic is still C#, and there is no npm ecosystem to draw on. UI Toolkit is a strong default for new Unity-native UI, and especially for editor tooling.

Loom — real web UI inside Unity

Loom takes a different route. Rather than reimplementing web ideas, it embeds a GPU-accelerated browser engine in Unity and renders a real web page into the render pipeline.

That gives you real HTML, CSS and TypeScript and the full npm ecosystem — React, Solid, Vue, Tailwind — plus hot reload, where UI changes appear in Play mode in under a second, and a typed bridge generated from your C# that keeps game and UI in sync. The trade-offs are real too: Loom is a paid product and a third-party dependency, it is new where the built-in systems are mature, and if nobody on the team knows web development, UGUI or UI Toolkit is a gentler start. Loom suits teams that already think in HTML and CSS and want that to be their advantage.

UGUI vs UI Toolkit vs Loom, side by side

How Unity's UI systems and Loom compare, May 2026.
UGUIUI ToolkitLoom
StatusMature, since 2014Newer, evolvingNew, in beta
StructureGameObjects + CanvasUXMLReal HTML
StylingComponent inspectorsUSS — a CSS subsetFull CSS
Logic languageC#C#TypeScript / JavaScript
EcosystemUnity Asset StoreUnity packagesnpm — React, Solid, Vue, Tailwind
Iteration loopPlay mode / domain reloadDomain reloadHot reload, under a second
World-space UIStrongLimitedScreen-space overlay
CostFree, built inFree, built inPaid — free during beta
Best suited toSmall projects, world-space UI, existing UGUI workEditor tooling, complex Unity-native UIWeb-skilled teams, UI-heavy games, fast iteration

When to use which

There is no single right answer — it depends on the project and the team.

Choose UGUI if…

  • You are extending an existing UGUI project.
  • You need a lot of world-space UI.
  • The project is small and you want the most documented, asset-rich option.

Choose UI Toolkit if…

  • You are building new Unity-native UI and want Unity's supported direction.
  • You are building editor tooling.
  • You want a retained-mode system without taking on a third-party dependency.

Choose Loom if…

  • Your team knows HTML, CSS and TypeScript.
  • The game has a lot of screen-space UI and you want to build it fast.
  • You want real CSS, the npm ecosystem and hot reload.

Many teams will reach for more than one of these over a project's life. The question is which system carries the bulk of your game's UI — and for a UI-heavy game built by people who know the web, that is the case Loom is made for.

Keep reading

Questions.

Is UGUI deprecated?
No. UGUI is still supported and widely used. Unity positions UI Toolkit as its long-term direction, but UGUI remains a valid choice, especially for world-space UI and existing projects.
Should I use UGUI or UI Toolkit for a new project?
For new Unity-native UI, UI Toolkit is Unity recommended direction, while UGUI is still the easier path for world-space UI and asset-heavy workflows. If your team prefers real HTML and CSS, Loom is a third option worth weighing.
Can Loom replace both UGUI and UI Toolkit?
Loom can carry a game screen-space UI — menus, HUDs, inventories and similar. It runs alongside Unity built-in systems, so teams often keep UGUI or UI Toolkit for world-space UI or editor tooling.
Which Unity UI system has the best performance?
All three can perform well when used as intended. UGUI can suffer canvas rebuild costs on large dynamic UI; Loom renders on the GPU and hands frames to Unity with zero copies on macOS and Windows. The right choice depends on your UI size and how often it changes.

Try Loom for free.
Drop it in and play.

Drop the tarball into your Unity project's Packages/, point your manifest at it, and run one menu item. Pricing announced when we open up for purchase.