Magic UI vs Aceternity UI in 2026: price, licence, count and AI support side by side
I make a different UI library (Tactile UI), so read this knowing that. Magic UI and Aceternity UI get compared a lot because they look alike from a distance: both are React, both use Tailwind and Motion, both are about animated sections, and both install through the shadcn CLI. Up close they differ on licence, on how much is free, and on what you pay for. Everything below was checked on 3 November 2026 on their own sites, pricing pages and GitHub. I compared what they publish, I didn't build the same page twice, so this is about the deal and the stack, not about which effects look better. If something is wrong, email me and I'll fix it.
The short version
- Magic UI is open source (MIT) at its core: 150+ free animated components and effects, plus a Pro tier of sections and templates for $199 once.
- Aceternity UI has no public repo. 100+ components are free, and the paid tiers add 200+ blocks and templates, from $169 (one year of updates) to $199 (lifetime).
- If open source matters to you, Magic UI. If you want the biggest pile of ready landing-page blocks, Aceternity has more of them on paper.
Side by side
| Magic UI | Aceternity UI | |
|---|---|---|
| What it says it is | "UI library for Design Engineers" | "The React component library for beautiful landing pages" |
| Stack | React, Tailwind, Motion, TypeScript | React, Tailwind, Motion, Next.js supported |
| Install | shadcn CLI (@magicui) | shadcn CLI (@aceternity) |
| Licence | MIT for the free library; Pro: commercial use, no reselling | Own licence: unlimited end products, no reselling or making templates to sell |
| Free | 150+ components and effects | 100+ components |
| Paid | Pro, $199 once, lifetime | $169 once with 1 year of updates, $199 lifetime, $1,590 team of 10 |
| What paid adds | 50+ sections, 9 templates | 200+ blocks, 15+ templates, 4 pages, 14 interactions |
| GitHub stars | 23.1k | No public repo |
| MCP for agents | Yes, its own MCP server | Yes, through the shadcn MCP server |
| llms.txt | Yes | Yes |
What actually differs
Open source or not. Magic UI's library is MIT on GitHub, so you can read it, fork it and send fixes. Aceternity's code is only on its site, under its own licence. For most projects that's fine, but it matters if your company has rules about licences.
What the money buys. Both paid tiers are about sections and templates rather than more small components. Aceternity lists more blocks (200+ against 50+ sections), Magic UI lists named templates (Codeforge, AI Agent, Dev Tool, Mobile, SaaS, Startup, Portfolio, Changelog, Blog). Aceternity's cheaper tier stops updates after a year, so the like-for-like price is $199 against $199.
Agents. Both work with Claude Code, Codex or Cursor. Magic UI ships its own MCP server; Aceternity goes through the shadcn one. Either way your agent can find and add a component by name.
Both are React only. If you're on Vue, Svelte or a plain page, neither one fits without porting.
If neither fits
Both are built for landing pages: hero effects, glowing borders, animated text. If you want UI that behaves like a physical object instead, a dial that clicks, an odometer that carries, a switch with travel, that's what I make. Tactile pieces are one ES module and one stylesheet each, no framework needed, and 62 of them are free. tactileui.dev
Earlier in this series: shadcn/ui and its alternatives in 2026, 10 UI libraries compared. React Bits vs shadcn/ui.
---
Tactile UI: UI components that work like real hardware. tactileui.dev