ksuid.net
All Comparisons

CUID2 vs Nano ID — Secure Random ID Generators Compared

CUID2 and Nano ID are both modern, security-conscious identifier generators designed for the needs of contemporary web applications, but they take fundamentally different architectural approaches. CUID2, the successor to the original CUID library, uses a hash-based construction that combines random data, a global counter, timestamps, and host fingerprint information through a SHA-256 hash to produce identifiers that are intentionally resistant to fingerprinting and reverse-engineering. Nano ID takes a more straightforward approach, generating identifiers directly from a cryptographically secure random number generator (CSPRNG) with a configurable alphabet and length, prioritizing simplicity, minimal bundle size, and raw generation speed.

The security models of the two libraries reflect their different design philosophies. CUID2 was explicitly designed to prevent attackers from extracting information about the generating host, the creation order, or the creation time from the identifier itself, even if an attacker can observe a large collection of generated IDs. Nano ID's security relies on the unpredictability of the underlying CSPRNG, which is strong against guessing attacks but does not add the additional anti-fingerprinting layer that CUID2 provides. For most web applications, both approaches provide more than adequate security, but applications in adversarial environments may benefit from CUID2's extra hardening.

From a practical standpoint, Nano ID's biggest advantage is its extremely small footprint — approximately 130 bytes gzipped with no dependencies — making it ideal for client-side applications where bundle size matters. It also offers full control over the output alphabet and length, enabling custom ID formats for specific needs. CUID2, while larger in bundle size, provides a more opinionated and tamper-resistant design that requires less security expertise from the developer to use safely.

Side-by-Side Comparison

Propertycuid2nanoid
Bit Length128126
Output Length2421
Encodingbase36base64url
SortableNoNo
TimestampedNoNo
MonotonicNoNo
Crypto RandomYesYes

cuid2 Pros & Cons

Pros

  • Hash-based construction prevents fingerprinting attacks, making it impossible to extract host information, creation time, or generation sequence from observed IDs
  • Designed with formal security analysis and collision testing, providing documented guarantees about distribution uniformity and information leakage resistance
  • Default output length and character set are carefully chosen to balance security, compactness, and compatibility without requiring developer configuration
  • Counter-based internal state ensures uniqueness guarantees beyond pure randomness, reducing collision risk even under unusual CSPRNG conditions

Cons

  • Larger bundle size than Nano ID due to the SHA-256 hashing step and additional entropy sources, which impacts client-side applications where every byte counts
  • Slower generation speed than Nano ID because each ID requires a hash computation in addition to random number generation
  • Less configurable than Nano ID — the alphabet and internal structure are fixed by design, limiting customization for applications with specific format requirements

nanoid Pros & Cons

Pros

  • Extremely small bundle size of approximately 130 bytes gzipped with zero dependencies, making it the lightest practical ID generator for browser applications
  • Fully configurable alphabet and length allow developers to generate IDs in custom formats such as URL-safe, numeric-only, or any arbitrary character set
  • Very fast generation since it reads directly from the CSPRNG without additional hashing, making it suitable for high-throughput scenarios
  • Simple, well-audited codebase that is easy to review, understand, and trust, with widespread adoption across the JavaScript ecosystem and beyond

Cons

  • Does not include anti-fingerprinting protections, so an attacker observing many IDs might theoretically extract statistical information about the generating environment
  • Security guarantees depend entirely on the quality of the underlying CSPRNG, with no additional defense-in-depth layers against random number generator weaknesses
  • Default alphabet uses mixed case and special characters, which can cause issues in case-insensitive systems or URLs if not configured carefully

Verdict

Choose Nano ID when bundle size, generation speed, and alphabet customization are your primary concerns — it is an excellent default for most web applications and APIs. Choose CUID2 when you need defense-in-depth against fingerprinting and information leakage, particularly in multi-tenant or adversarial environments where observed IDs could be used to attack your infrastructure.

Try CUID2 GeneratorTry NANOID Generator

Frequently Asked Questions

Are CUID2 and Nano ID safe for use as database primary keys?

Both are safe for use as primary keys, but neither is time-sorted, so they will cause B-tree index fragmentation similar to UUID v4 in write-heavy workloads. If database insert performance is a concern, consider pairing them with a separate auto-incrementing surrogate key or using a time-sorted format like UUID v7 instead.

Which should I use for URL shorteners or user-facing IDs?

Nano ID is generally better for URL shorteners because you can configure a custom alphabet (such as alphanumeric-only) and a shorter length to produce compact, user-friendly IDs. CUID2 works well for user-facing IDs when you want the extra assurance that IDs cannot be reverse-engineered to reveal system information.

Can I use CUID2 or Nano ID in a distributed system without coordination?

Yes, both are designed for coordination-free generation. Neither requires a central authority or sequence counter shared between nodes. Each instance generates IDs independently, relying on cryptographic randomness (and in CUID2's case, hashing) to ensure global uniqueness.

© 2024 Carova Labs. All rights reserved