Forem: Cristian Gaitano Ornia

Part two of a React form architecture series, focusing on performance, React Query integration, and long-term maintenance trade-offs between SurveyJS and React Hook Form.

Cristian Gaitano Ornia — Wed, 21 Jan 2026 01:55:12 +0000

Comparing Form Libraries for React: SurveyJS vs React Hook Form

Cristian Gaitano Ornia ・ Jan 16

#react #architecture #surveyjs #reacthookform

New two-part series exploring architectural trade-offs between schema-driven and code-centric form libraries in React. This first part focuses on architecture and long-term scalability considerations.

Cristian Gaitano Ornia — Wed, 21 Jan 2026 01:54:12 +0000

Cristian Gaitano Ornia

Jan 16

Top React Form Libraries in 2026: A Strategic Architecture Analysis

#react #architecture #surveyjs #reacthookform

Comments

10 min read

Comparing Form Libraries for React: SurveyJS vs React Hook Form

Cristian Gaitano Ornia — Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:44:23 +0000

This is the second part of a two-part series analyzing architectural differences between SurveyJS and other React libraries for form management.

The first part covered architectural paradigms, a deep analysis of SurveyJS and code-centric solutions, and a comparative overview.

This part focuses on React Query integration, performance analysis, long-term maintenance, and strategic decision frameworks.

React Query Integration Patterns

Data Fetching and Form State Synchronization

Both architectural approaches can integrate effectively with React Query, but require different integration patterns:

React Hook Form + React Query Integration:

const UserForm = () => {
  const { data: user } = useQuery(['user', userId], fetchUser);
  const mutation = useMutation(updateUser);

  const { register, handleSubmit, setValue } = useForm();

  useEffect(() => {
    if (user) {
      setValue('name', user.name);
      setValue('email', user.email);
    }
  }, [user, setValue]);

  const onSubmit = (data) => {
    mutation.mutate(data);
  };

  return <form onSubmit={handleSubmit(onSubmit)}>{/* ... */}</form>;
};

SurveyJS + React Query Integration:

const SurveyForm = () => {
  const { data: survey } = useQuery(['survey', surveyId], fetchSurvey);
  const mutation = useMutation(saveSurveyResults);

  const handleComplete = (sender) => {
    mutation.mutate(sender.data);
  };

  if (!survey) return <div>Loading...</div>;

  const model = new Model(survey);
  model.onComplete.add(handleComplete);

  return <Survey model={model} />;
};

Caching and State Management Strategies

React Hook Form Caching:

Form state can be cached using React Query's cache
Manual implementation of form state persistence
Flexible caching strategies based on specific requirements

SurveyJS Caching:

Schema definitions can be cached separately from form state
Built-in support for form state persistence
Consistent caching behavior across different form instances

Performance Analysis and Optimization

Runtime Performance Characteristics

React Hook Form Performance:

Minimizes re-renders through direct input registration
Efficient for forms with many fields
Performance can be tuned through proper use of shouldUnregister and shouldFocusError

SurveyJS Performance:

Optimized for complex form scenarios
Efficient handling of dynamic form behavior
Built-in performance optimizations for conditional logic

Bundle Size Considerations

React Hook Form Bundle Impact:

Core library: ~30KB compressed
Additional size for validation libraries (Zod: ~15KB)
Minimal impact on application bundle size

SurveyJS Bundle Impact:

Core library: ~150KB compressed
Additional packages for advanced features
Significantly larger but provides comprehensive functionality

Memory Usage Patterns

Memory Management in Code-Centric Approaches:

Form state is managed by React's reconciliation system
Memory usage scales with React component tree complexity
Garbage collection is managed by React's lifecycle

Memory Management in Schema-Based Approaches:

Separate form engine and schema interpretation
Memory usage includes schema definitions and runtime state
Optimized for long-running form sessions

Long-Term Maintenance and Evolution

Codebase Evolution Patterns

React Hook Form Evolution:

// Version 1: Simple form
const SimpleForm = () => {
  const { register, handleSubmit } = useForm();
  return <form>{/* basic fields */}</form>;
};

// Version 2: Validation added
const ValidatedForm = () => {
  const { register, handleSubmit, formState: { errors } } = useForm({
    resolver: zodResolver(schema)
  });
  return <form>{/* fields with validation */}</form>;
};

// Version 3: Conditional logic added
const DynamicForm = () => {
  const { register, handleSubmit, watch } = useForm();
  const conditionalField = watch('showField');
  return <form>{/* conditional fields */}</form>;
};

SurveyJS Evolution:

// Version 1: Simple form
{
  "elements": [{ "type": "text", "name": "field" }]
}

// Version 2: Validation added
{
  "elements": [{
    "type": "text", 
    "name": "field",
    "validators": [{ "type": "required" }]
  }]
}

// Version 3: Conditional logic added
{
  "elements": [{
    "type": "text",
    "name": "field",
    "visibleIf": "{showField} = true",
    "validators": [{ "type": "required" }]
  }]
}

Team Collaboration and Knowledge Transfer

Code-Centric Collaboration:

Requires React and JavaScript expertise for all team members
Form logic is embedded in component code
Knowledge transfer through code reviews and documentation

Schema-Based Collaboration:

Enables collaboration between developers and non-developers
Form logic is externalized to data structures
Knowledge transfer through schema validation and testing

Scaling and Enterprise Adoption

Enterprise Scaling Considerations:

React Hook Form Scaling:

Requires consistent patterns across large teams
Complex forms need careful architectural planning
Performance optimization becomes critical at scale

SurveyJS Scaling:

Schema management becomes central to form development
Integrated workflow management scales naturally
Enterprise features (versioning, audit trails) support large organizations

Strategic Decision Framework

Architectural Fit Evaluation

The choice between schema-based and code-centric approaches should be guided by strategic considerations rather than feature lists:

Choose Code-Centric (React Hook Form) When:

The team has strong React/JavaScript experience
Forms are relatively simple or medium complexity
Maximum performance is critical
Custom UI/UX requirements are paramount
Integration with existing React patterns is essential

Choose Schema-Based (SurveyJS) When:

Forms involve complex conditional logic
Non-developers need to create/modify forms
Form versioning and audit trails are required
Multi-page workflows are common
Long-term maintainability is prioritized over initial development speed

Risk Evaluation Matrix

Factor	React Hook Form	SurveyJS
Team Learning Curve	Low (React knowledge)	Medium (new paradigm)
Complex Form Risk	High (manual implementation)	Low (built-in capabilities)
Performance Risk	Low (optimized by default)	Medium (implementation dependent)
Maintenance Risk	Medium (code complexity)	Low (schema separation)
Scaling Risk	Medium (architectural complexity)	Low (designed for scale)

Implementation Recommendations

Migration Strategies

From Code-Centric to Schema-Based:

Identify forms that would benefit from declarative definitions
Start with new forms using schema-based approach
Gradually migrate existing forms based on complexity and ROI
Establish schema validation and testing processes

From Schema-Based to Code-Centric:

Identify performance-critical forms
Extract form logic to custom components
Implement custom validation and state management
Maintain schema definitions where beneficial

Hybrid Approaches

Many enterprise applications benefit from combining both approaches:

const HybridForm = () => {
  // Use React Hook Form for simple, performance-critical sections
  const { register, handleSubmit } = useForm();

  // Use SurveyJS for complex, dynamic sections
  const complexFormModel = new Model(complexFormSchema);

  return (
    <>
      {/* Simple section with React Hook Form */}
      <form onSubmit={handleSubmit(onSimpleSubmit)}>
        <input {...register('name')} />
      </form>

      {/* Complex section with SurveyJS */}
      <Survey model={complexFormModel} />
    </>
  );
};

The most successful implementations often recognize that these approaches are not mutually exclusive but complementary tools in a comprehensive form development strategy. As with many architectural decisions, pragmatism is usually the best compass.

Future Considerations and Ecosystem Evolution

Emerging Patterns in Form Development

The React ecosystem continues to evolve, with several trends influencing form library development:

Server Component Integration:

Form libraries are adapting to React Server Components
New patterns for form data fetching and validation
Performance implications of different architectural approaches

Web Standards Evolution:

Native form validation APIs
Progressive enhancement strategies
Accessibility and internationalization standards

Developer Experience and Tools:

Visual form builders
Type safety improvements
Testing and validation tools

Strategic Technology Selection

Organizations should consider not just current requirements but future evolution when selecting form solutions:

React Hook Form Future Readiness:

Strong alignment with React ecosystem trends
Active maintenance and community support
Performance optimization as React evolves

SurveyJS Future Readiness:

Schema-based approach aligns with configuration-as-code trends
Enterprise features support long-term adoption
Multi-platform support reduces vendor lock-in

Conclusion: Architectural Wisdom in Form Selection

The choice between SurveyJS and React ecosystem form libraries represents more than a simple tool selection, but rather a strategic architectural decision that will influence development patterns, team collaboration, and application scalability for years to come.

React Hook Form and similar code-centric solutions excel in scenarios requiring maximum performance, custom UI control, and seamless integration with existing React patterns. They represent the pragmatic choice for teams with strong JavaScript expertise building applications where form complexity remains manageable through careful architectural planning.

SurveyJS and other schema-based solutions offer compelling advantages for enterprise applications, complex form scenarios, and organizations requiring non-developer form creation capabilities. The separation of form logic from implementation code provides architectural benefits that accumulate over time, particularly in large-scale applications.

Perhaps reading this analysis has reminded you of your own form experiences: those nights debugging conditional validation, those forms that seemed simple but turned out to be complexity monsters, or simply the satisfaction of getting a form to work perfectly across all browsers. These tools we analyze don't exist in a vacuum: they are born from decades of collective developer experience facing the same challenges.

Hybrid implementations that leverage the strengths of both paradigms can provide optimal solutions for complex enterprise requirements while maintaining the development speed and performance characteristics that modern React applications require. After so many years working with forms, I've learned that there is no universal perfect solution. What works for a three-person startup doesn't necessarily scale to an enterprise with globally distributed teams. The key is understanding the context and specific needs of each project.

As the React ecosystem continues to evolve, the fundamental architectural principles underlying these different approaches—declarative vs imperative definitions, separation of concerns, and performance optimization—will remain relevant considerations for technical decision-makers navigating the complex landscape of form development solutions. From the days of pure JavaScript, with its raw validations and endless conditionals, to the elegant abstractions we have today, the goal has always been the same: capture user input reliably, validate it correctly, and process it efficiently. The tools we choose are simply the means to achieve that timeless objective.

The key insight is that effective form architecture requires understanding not just what these tools can do, but how their underlying architectural paradigms will shape the long-term success and maintainability of the applications they power. This strategic perspective, rather than feature-by-feature comparisons, should guide the architectural decisions that determine the success of form implementation projects in enterprise React applications.

Top React Form Libraries in 2026: A Strategic Architecture Analysis

Cristian Gaitano Ornia — Fri, 16 Jan 2026 15:22:31 +0000

Abstract

The React ecosystem presents a diverse landscape of form management solutions, each representing fundamentally different architectural approaches to the same core challenge: capturing, validating, and processing user input in dynamic web applications. This article examines SurveyJS Form Library alongside three dominant React form solutions—React Hook Form, Formik, and React Final Form—through the lens of software architecture, focusing on the strategic decisions that separate schema-based declarative systems from code-centric imperative approaches.

Rather than presenting a flat, boring feature checklist, this analysis explores how these architectural differences manifest in real-world development scenarios, maintenance patterns, and long-term scalability considerations. We examine the underlying paradigms that shape these tools and provide guidance not only for developers but also for technical decision-makers evaluating form solutions for enterprise-level applications.

Introduction: Beyond Feature Lists

The proliferation of form libraries in the React ecosystem often leads to evaluation processes centered on superficial feature comparisons. However, the choice between solutions like SurveyJS and React Hook Form represents a fundamental architectural decision that extends far beyond simple feature lists. This choice impacts how teams structure applications, maintain codebases, and scale their form-related capabilities over time.

I remember when, more than two decades ago, validating a form in JavaScript meant writing extensive functions with heaps of conditional statements. There were no sophisticated libraries or elegant abstractions: it was pure JavaScript in its rawest, most direct form. Each validation was a small project unto itself. Validating an email meant writing complex regular expressions that often failed with edge cases. Today, libraries like Zod or SurveyJS's built-in validators accomplish that work in a few lines of configuration. The difference is not just one of code quantity, but of philosophy: from manual imperative to declarative automatic.

If you've ever written "if (email.indexOf('@') > -1)" as email validation, you know exactly what we're talking about when we discuss raw JavaScript validations. We've come a long way from those days, although some of that code still lives in legacy projects that prefer not to be mentioned. When evaluating solutions like SurveyJS or React Hook Form today, I can't help but feel a mix of nostalgia and amazement at how our ecosystem has evolved.

For developers who began their careers in recent years, it may be difficult to imagine a world where react-hook-form or formik didn't exist. Manual form state management, constant re-renders, and field-by-field validation were the norm, not the exception. Today, when analyzing these modern tools, we think in categories that our predecessors could barely dream about.

This analysis bridges the gap between feature comparisons and architectural understanding by examining the core paradigms driving these different approaches. We explore how schema-based systems like SurveyJS contrast with code-centric methodologies, and how these differences affect everything from development speed to long-term maintenance costs. Perhaps reading this analysis will remind you of your own form experiences: those nights debugging conditional validation, those forms that seemed simple but turned out to be complexity monsters, or simply the satisfaction of getting a form to work perfectly across all browsers.

To learn more about SurveyJS architecture, you can refer to the official SurveyJS Architecture Guide.

Architectural Paradigms: A Framework for Understanding

Schema-Based vs Code-Centric Approaches

The fundamental distinction between the two form libraries we analyze can begin to be understood through their core architectural paradigms:

Schema-Based Architecture (SurveyJS):

Forms are defined as structured data (JSON schemas)
Runtime interpretation of declarative definitions
Separation of form logic from presentation code
Dynamic form generation capabilities
Built-in workflow management (multi-page, conditional logic)

Code-Centric Architecture (React Hook Form, Formik, React Final Form):

Forms are defined through imperative code
Direct manipulation of form state and validation
Tight coupling between form logic and React components
Explicit control over every aspect of form behavior
Integration with React component lifecycle

This paradigmatic difference creates cascading effects throughout application architecture, influencing everything from how developers interact with forms to how applications can be scaled and maintained over time.

Choosing between SurveyJS and React Hook Form is a bit like deciding between an automatic and a manual car. Both get you to your destination, but the driving experience, control, and learning curve are radically different. SurveyJS is like the automatic: comfort, abstraction, fewer technical concerns. React Hook Form is the manual: full control, optimized performance, but requires more driver attention.

The Declarative-Imperative Spectrum

Schema-Based (SurveyJS)
├── JSON Schema Definition
├── Runtime Interpretation
├── Declarative Logic
└── Integrated Workflows
        ↓
    Hybrid Approaches
        ↓
Code-Centric (React Hook Form)
├── Imperative Code
├── Direct State Management
├── Explicit Control
└── Custom Workflows

Understanding this spectrum helps contextualize where each solution fits within the broader React ecosystem and why certain architectural decisions may be more appropriate for specific use cases.

Deep Analysis: SurveyJS Form Library

Architectural Foundation

SurveyJS represents a comprehensive form management platform built around the concept of forms as structured data. At its core, SurveyJS implements a runtime engine that interprets JSON-formatted definitions to generate dynamic user interfaces, handle validation, manage form state, and orchestrate complex workflows.

The architectural significance of this approach lies in its separation of concerns: form definitions exist independently of their implementation, allowing form logic to be stored, versioned, and manipulated as data rather than code. It's as if our forms of old, those we wrote with such effort and nested conditionals, could finally exist as independent entities that can evolve without dragging along all the weight of the surrounding code.

You can explore the SurveyJS repository on GitHub to understand its architecture and implementation details.

Core Components and Their Interactions

Schema Definition Layer:

{
  "pages": [{
    "elements": [{
      "type": "text",
      "name": "userEmail",
      "title": "Email Address",
      "validators": [{
        "type": "email"
      }],
      "visibleIf": "{hasAccount} = true"
    }]
  }]
}

Runtime Interpretation Engine:

Parses JSON schemas into executable form definitions
Manages form state transitions and validation rules
Handles conditional logic and dynamic form behavior
Provides hooks for custom validation and data processing

Rendering Layer:

Dynamically generates React components based on schema definitions
Manages component lifecycle and state synchronization
Handles user interactions and form submission workflows

Enterprise-Specific Capabilities

SurveyJS's schema-based architecture enables capabilities that are difficult to achieve with code-centric approaches:

Dynamic Form Generation: Forms can be created, modified, and deployed without code changes, enabling rapid iteration and A/B testing of form experiences. Imagine being able to change a field's validation or add a new question without touching a single line of JavaScript code. For agile teams that need to iterate quickly, this can make a significant difference in development speed.

Complex Workflow Management: Multi-page forms, conditional logic, and branching scenarios are handled declaratively, reducing the complexity of imperative state management. Those of us who have tried implementing multi-page forms with complex conditional logic in the past know how much boilerplate code was needed. SurveyJS eliminates much of that complexity.

Non-Developer Form Creation: The separation between form definition and implementation enables tools like Survey Creator, allowing non-technical users to create and modify forms. This capability fundamentally transforms who can participate in the form creation process, democratizing data capture interface development.

Versioning and Audit Trails: Form schemas can be versioned, audited, and reverted like any other data structure, providing compliance and change management capabilities. In regulated industries where every change must be tracked and justified, this capability proves invaluable.

For a comprehensive understanding of SurveyJS capabilities and how to implement them, check the Getting Started Guide for React.

Personal Reflection

After so many years working with forms, I've learned that there is no universal perfect solution. What works for a three-person startup doesn't necessarily scale to an enterprise with globally distributed teams. The key is understanding the context and specific needs of each project. SurveyJS shines especially when long-term maintainability and cross-team collaboration are priorities.

Code-Centric Solutions: React Hook Form Analysis

Architectural Philosophy

React Hook Form embodies the pragmatic, performance-focused approach characteristic of modern React development. Its architecture is built around the principle of minimizing re-renders while providing maximum developer control over form behavior.

The key architectural intuition of React Hook Form is that form state doesn't need to live in React state at all. By leveraging JavaScript's built-in form APIs and custom hooks, the library can maintain form state outside of React's reconciliation cycle, dramatically improving performance for complex forms.

This philosophy represents a significant evolution from the days of manual validation. If before we wrote extensive functions for each validation type, today React Hook Form allows us to define validations declaratively while maintaining total control over when and how they execute. It's like having gone from driving a car with manual gears to a race car where every control responds instantly.

You can explore the React Hook Form repository on GitHub to understand its implementation and capabilities.

Implementation Patterns

Performance-Oriented State Management:

const { register, handleSubmit, formState: { errors } } = useForm({
  mode: 'onChange',
  reValidateMode: 'onChange'
});

// Registers inputs without triggering re-renders
<input {...register('email', { required: 'Email is required' })} />

Custom Hooks Architecture:

useForm() provides a comprehensive API for form management
Individual field registration minimizes component re-renders
Flexible validation integration supports multiple validation libraries

React Ecosystem Integration:

Seamless TypeScript integration for type safety
Compatible with state management solutions (Redux, Zustand, etc.)
Works with any UI component library
TypeScript-centered design supports modern development patterns

Strengths and Limitations

Strengths:

Exceptional performance characteristics
Minimal bundle size impact
Flexible integration with existing codebases
Strong TypeScript support

Limitations:

Requires manual implementation of complex workflows
No built-in visual form builder or design tools
Dynamic form creation requires significant custom code
Multi-page forms need manual state management

Comparative Analysis: Architecture in Practice

Development Speed and Complexity

Architectural differences between schema-based and code-centric approaches manifest most clearly in development speed for different project types:

Small to Medium Forms:

Code-centric solutions (React Hook Form) offer faster development
Direct UI and behavior control reduces abstraction overhead
Simpler mental model for straightforward use cases

Complex Dynamic Forms:

Schema-based solutions (SurveyJS) provide significant advantages
Declarative definition of complex logic reduces implementation time
Integrated workflow management eliminates custom state management code

Enterprise-Scale Applications:

Schema-based approaches offer better long-term maintainability
Separation of form logic from application code improves scalability
Versioning and change management capabilities support enterprise requirements

Maintenance and Evolution Patterns

SurveyJS Maintenance Patterns:

// Form modifications can be deployed as data changes
{
  "elements": [{
    "type": "dropdown",
    "name": "country",
    "title": "Country",
    "choices": ["USA", "Canada", "Mexico"] // Easily updatable
  }]
}

React Hook Form Maintenance Patterns:

// Form modifications require code changes and deployment
const countries = ['USA', 'Canada', 'Mexico'];

<select {...register('country')}>
  {countries.map(country => (
    <option key={country} value={country}>{country}</option>
  ))}
</select>

The difference here is notable. In SurveyJS, changing dropdown options is as simple as editing a JSON file. In React Hook Form, you need to modify code, potentially recompile and redeploy. For teams that need to iterate quickly or have changing business requirements, this difference can be significant.

React Ecosystem Integration

React Hook Form Integration:

Direct integration with React Query for data fetching
Seamless use with state management libraries
Compatible with any UI component system
TypeScript-centric design supports modern development patterns

SurveyJS Integration:

Works alongside React Query and other data-fetching solutions
Provides its own theming and styling system
Requires adaptation to existing design systems
Offers React-specific packages but maintains framework independence

Validation Strategies: A Technical Comparison

Type Safety and Compile-Time Guarantees

The validation approaches of these solutions reflect their underlying architectural philosophies. If we compare with the validations we did twenty years ago, where each function was a world unto itself, today we have abstractions that protect us from common errors:

For detailed information on SurveyJS validation capabilities, refer to the Data Validation Documentation.

React Hook Form with Zod:

import { z } from 'zod';
import { useForm } from 'react-hook-form';
import { zodResolver } from '@hookform/resolvers/zod';

const schema = z.object({
  email: z.string().email(),
  age: z.number().min(18)
});

type FormData = z.infer<typeof schema>;

const { register, handleSubmit, formState: { errors } } = useForm<FormData>({
  resolver: zodResolver(schema)
});

SurveyJS Validation:

{
  "elements": [{
    "type": "text",
    "name": "email",
    "validators": [{
      "type": "email",
      "text": "Please enter a valid email address"
    }]
  }, {
    "type": "text",
    "name": "age",
    "validators": [{
      "type": "numeric",
      "minValue": 18,
      "text": "You must be at least 18 years old"
    }]
  }]
}

Back in the day, each validation was a small project unto itself. Today, libraries like Zod or SurveyJS's built-in validators accomplish that work in a few lines of configuration. The difference is not just one of code quantity, but of philosophy: from manual imperative to declarative automatic.

Performance Implications

Schema-Based Validation:

Validation rules are interpreted at runtime
Efficient for complex validation scenarios
Built-in optimization for conditional validation

Code-Centric Validation:

Validation logic executes directly in React components
Can be optimized through proper dependency management
Flexible performance tuning based on specific requirements

Dynamic Forms and Conditional Logic

Implementation Complexity Comparison

Dynamic Logic with React Hook Form:

const { watch, register } = useForm();
const hasPet = watch('hasPet');

return (
  <>
    <select {...register('hasPet')}>
      <option value="">Select...</option>
      <option value="yes">Yes</option>
      <option value="no">No</option>
    </select>

    {hasPet === 'yes' && (
      <input 
        {...register('petName', { required: 'Pet name is required' })}
        placeholder="What type of pet?"
      />
    )}
  </>
);

Dynamic Logic with SurveyJS:

{
  "elements": [{
    "type": "dropdown",
    "name": "hasPet",
    "title": "Do you have a pet?",
    "choices": ["Yes", "No"]
  }, {
    "type": "text",
    "name": "petName",
    "title": "What type of pet?",
    "visibleIf": "{hasPet} = 'Yes'",
    "validators": [{
      "type": "text",
      "required": true
    }]
  }]
}

Scalability Considerations

Architectural differences become more pronounced as form complexity increases:

Code-Centric Approach:

Complexity grows linearly with form complexity
Each conditional rule requires additional imperative code
State management becomes increasingly challenging
Tests require simulating complex interaction patterns

Schema-Based Approach:

Complexity is handled through declarative definitions
Conditional logic scales independently of implementation complexity
State management is handled by the runtime engine
Tests focus on schema validation rather than interaction tests

Personal Reflection

I've seen teams spend weeks implementing complex conditional logic in forms, dealing with inconsistent states and race conditions. With a schema-based approach, the same functionality can be achieved in hours. It's not just about development speed, but about reducing the possibility of subtle errors that can slip through until production.

This article establishes the architectural foundations and trade-offs between schema-driven and code-centric form management approaches.

In the second part, we move from theory to execution and operational impact, analyzing real-world scalability concerns, React Query integration patterns, performance implications, and long-term maintenance strategies when choosing between SurveyJS and React Hook Form.

Continue with Part 2:

SurveyJS vs React Hook Form: Scaling, Performance, and Long-Term Maintenance