Migrating from Bootstrap Blazor or MudBlazor to Blazorise

Blazor developers evaluating UI frameworks often begin with Bootstrap Blazor or MudBlazor.
Both offer rich component ecosystems, but eventually many teams look for a framework that is:

• More extensible
• More composable
• More customizable
• More predictable for enterprise-scale apps

This is where Blazorise becomes a compelling upgrade path.

In this article, we explore the architectural differences between these frameworks, compare their performance models, and provide a detailed migration guide with real-world patterns and code examples.

Disclaimer: This article compares Blazorise with other popular Blazor frameworks from the perspective of external usage. Since we do not have full internal knowledge of Bootstrap Blazor or MudBlazor, certain technical aspects may differ depending on version, configuration, or project-specific extensions. The goal is to provide a helpful, good-faith overview—not an exhaustive internal audit.

1. Design Philosophy Comparison

MudBlazor

MudBlazor is a Material Design-first component library.
Its identity is tied to a specific look and feel, deeply integrated into its API surface.

Pros:

• Beautiful Material Design components
• Good documentation
• Active community

Cons:

• Visual identity strongly tied to Material
• Harder to adopt custom styling systems
• Some components are tightly coupled to rendering logic

Bootstrap Blazor

Bootstrap Blazor aims for Bootstrap-native UI, closely following the original HTML/CSS semantics.

Pros:

• Easy for teams already using Bootstrap
• Simple mental model

Cons:

• Bootstrap-based components limit customization
• Lower extensibility
• Component APIs tend to mirror Bootstrap constraints

Blazorise

Blazorise takes a fundamentally different approach:

• Unified component model
• Provider system (Bootstrap, Material, Bulma, AntDesign, Tailwind, Fluent, etc.)
• 100% decoupled rendering logic from visual identity
• Highly extensible architecture

The provider architecture means a single Blazorise component can be themed through multiple UI systems:

builder.Services
    .AddBlazorise()
    .AddBootstrap5Providers()
    .AddFontAwesomeIcons();

Switching to Material design?

builder.Services
    .AddBlazorise()
    .AddMaterialProviders()
    .AddMaterialIcons();

Zero code changes in your components.

2. Performance Differences

MudBlazor performance characteristics

MudBlazor components are highly interactive but often tightly coupled, which can lead to:

• Larger component trees
• More re-render triggers
• More RenderFragment churn
• Higher diffing costs in complex pages

Bootstrap Blazor performance characteristics

Bootstrap Blazor tends to be lightweight, but lacks advanced virtualization, memoization techniques, and heavy-component optimizations.

Blazorise performance characteristics

Blazorise integrates:

• Template memoization patterns
• Render throttling (available in DataGrid, SelectList, Scheduler)
• Virtualization support
• Optimized @key usage
• Component-level ShouldRender logic where it matters

Real world example from Blazorise DataGrid:

<DataGrid TItem="Order"
          Data="@Orders"
          Filterable="true"
          ShowPager="true"
          PageSize="50"
          Virtualize="true" />

The DataGrid is architected with:

• Minimal DOM reflow
• Cached cell templates
• Per-row update optimization

For large datasets, Blazorise often outperforms MudBlazor in CPU cost and layout recalculation.

3. Extensibility Model

MudBlazor extensibility

• Extending components requires deep diving into internal logic.
• Many components don't expose hooks for fluid customization.

Bootstrap Blazor extensibility

• Designed around Bootstrap semantics, so extensibility is limited to Bootstrap's capabilities.

Blazorise extensibility

Blazorise exposes extensible building blocks:

• Render handlers
• Custom validation systems
• Provider-based styling
• Feature-level extension packages (Charts, DataGrid, Quill, RichTextEdit, Scheduler, etc.)
• Dynamic component mapping via IClassProvider and IStyleProvider

Example: custom validation logic (something MudBlazor cannot natively reproduce):

<Validation Validator="ValidateUsernameAsync">
    <TextEdit @bind-Text="Username" />
</Validation>

@code {
    async Task ValidateUsernameAsync(ValidatorEventArgs e, CancellationToken t)
    {
        if (string.IsNullOrWhiteSpace($"{e.Value}"))
        {
            e.Status = ValidationStatus.Error;
            return;
        }

        // async server-side uniqueness check
        var available = await UserApi.ExistsAsync(e.Value.ToString());
        e.Status = available ? ValidationStatus.Error : ValidationStatus.Success;
    }
}

4. Migration Strategy

Migration has two goals:

1. Maintain feature parity
2. Improve architecture without rewriting everything

Below are recommended approaches for both.

4.1 Replace Components Incrementally

Blazorise components map cleanly to MudBlazor or Bootstrap Blazor counterparts.

MudBlazor → Blazorise Examples

A common example:

MudBlazor

<MudTextField @bind-Value="Model.Name" Label="Name" Required="true" />

Blazorise

<Validation Validator="ValidationRule.IsNotEmpty">
    <TextEdit @bind-Text="Model.Name" Placeholder="Name" />
</Validation>

4.2 Map CSS Utility Classes

Bootstrap Blazor users can keep Bootstrap utility classes:

<Button Class="mt-2 px-3">Save</Button>

But we reccomend Blazorise unique fluent-based utilities

<Button Margin="Margin.Is2.FromTop" Padding="Padding.Is3.OnX">Save</Button>

MudBlazor users moving to Bootstrap or Tailwind providers should first extract utility classes into reusable style sheets.

4.3 Rewrite Complex Components with Blazorise Patterns

Example: MudTable → Blazorise DataGrid

<DataGrid TItem="Order"
          Data="@Orders"
          SelectionMode="DataGridSelectionMode.Multiple"
          Sortable="true"
          Filterable="true"
          ShowPage="true"
          PageSize="20" />

Blazorise DataGrid provides built-in:

• Sorting/filtering/paging
• Inline editing
• Virtualization
• Templates per cell/row/header

4.4 Handle Validation Differences

MudBlazor validations are model-driven.

Blazorise supports both field-driven and model-driven validation, allowing you to combine granular input rules with full model-level validation:

• Async validators
• Condition-based rules
• Cross-field validation

Example migration:

MudForm / MudTextField

<MudForm>
    <MudTextField @bind-Value="Email" Required="true" />
</MudForm>

Blazorise Validation

<Validations Mode="ValidationMode.Auto">
    <Validation Validator="ValidationRule.IsEmail">
        <TextEdit @bind-Text="Email" />
    </Validation>
</Validations>

5. Migration Checklist

Step 1 - Identify utility classes

Extract or rewrite MudBlazor CSS classes.

Step 2 - Replace fundamental components

Start with Buttons, Inputs, Forms.

Step 3 - Migrate complex components

Tables → DataGrid
Dialogs → Modal
Snackbars → Alert / Toast

Step 4 - Choose a provider

Bootstrap, Tailwind, Material, Fluent, Bulma, AntDesign, …

Step 5 - Introduce Blazorise validation gradually

Replace field-by-field.

Step 6 - Optimize performance early

Use:

protected override bool ShouldRender() => ShouldUpdateUI;

Memoize templates for heavy lists.

6. Final Thoughts

Migrating from MudBlazor or Bootstrap Blazor to Blazorise is not just a cosmetic upgrade, it is an architectural improvement that gives your application:

• A more scalable component model
• Better performance characteristics
• Cleaner extensibility
• Multiple UI provider options
• Enterprise-grade components (DataGrid, Scheduler, Charts, RichTextEdit)

If your Blazor app is growing in complexity, Blazorise provides the flexibility and power required to keep it maintainable for years to come.

If you want us to convert your actual codebase or provide a step-by-step migration assessment, feel free to reach out!

Mladen Macanović

2025-12-08 · 16 min