State Management: Why One Size Doesn't Fit All
By Gabriel Cruceanu • December 10, 2025
State management discussions often focus on finding the "best" solution. Redux vs Zustand vs Jotai vs Context API. The real question isn't which is best. It's which fits your constraints.
You're building a React application. State needs to be shared across components. You need to decide how to manage it.
The common approach: pick a popular solution. Redux is popular, so use Redux. Or Zustand is simpler, so use Zustand. Or Context API is built-in, so use Context API.
This misses the point. The right choice depends on constraints you haven't considered yet.
Application size matters. A small application with 10 components doesn't need Redux. A large application with 500 components might.
Team size matters. Redux requires more boilerplate. More boilerplate means more onboarding time. Small teams benefit from simpler solutions. Large teams benefit from structure.
State complexity matters. Simple state (user preferences, UI toggles) doesn't need complex solutions. Complex state (multi-step forms, real-time updates, offline sync) might.
Time horizon matters. What works for a 6-month project might not work for a 5-year project. Complexity compounds. Simple solutions become technical debt.
Use Context API when:
- State is simple (user preferences, theme, UI state)
- Application is small (< 50 components)
- Team is small (< 5 developers)
- Time horizon is short (< 1 year)
Use Zustand/Jotai when:
- State is moderately complex
- Application is medium-sized (50-200 components)
- Team is medium-sized (5-15 developers)
- You want simplicity with some structure
Use Redux when:
- State is complex (normalized data, time-travel debugging needed)
- Application is large (> 200 components)
- Team is large (> 15 developers)
- Time horizon is long (> 2 years)
Context API:
- ✅ Simple, built-in
- ❌ Performance issues at scale
- ❌ No DevTools
- ❌ Hard to debug complex state
Zustand/Jotai:
- ✅ Simple API
- ✅ Good performance
- ✅ Lightweight
- ❌ Less ecosystem support
- ❌ Fewer patterns established
Redux:
- ✅ Mature ecosystem
- ✅ Excellent DevTools
- ✅ Established patterns
- ❌ More boilerplate
- ❌ Steeper learning curve
- ❌ Overkill for simple apps
I've seen Redux added to small applications because "it's the standard." The result: unnecessary complexity, slower development, frustrated developers.
I've also seen Context API used in large applications because "it's simpler." The result: performance issues, debugging nightmares, refactoring pain.
The difference isn't the tools. It's matching tools to constraints.
If you're writing more boilerplate than business logic, reconsider. If performance issues appear, reconsider. If onboarding new developers takes weeks, reconsider.
State management isn't about following trends. It's about understanding your constraints and choosing tools that fit.
The "best" solution is the one that fits your context. Not the one that's most popular.
Start simple. Use Context API or local state. Add complexity only when constraints require it. Don't optimize for scale you don't have yet.
When constraints change—application grows, team grows, state complexity grows—then reconsider. But start simple.
Complexity compounds. Simple solutions that fit your constraints are better than complex solutions that don't.
Gabriel Cruceanu
Frontend Engineer with an architectural focus on long-lived systems and technical decision-making.
Related Posts
The Hidden Costs of Framework Churn
Switching frameworks seems like progress, but the real cost isn't migration time. It's the architectural decisions that get lost in translation.
When Micro-Frontends Create More Problems Than They Solve
Micro-frontends promise independence and scalability, but they often introduce complexity that outweighs the benefits. Here's when they make sense and when they don't.