Map the AG Grid surface before comparing libraries
Inventory columnDefs, rowData, defaultColDef, value getters, formatters, cell renderers, editors, selection, pinned regions, filters, row models, charts, pivoting, and server requests. A migration estimate based only on row rendering will miss the custom behavior that usually controls cost.
Translate configuration, then review the report
@ace-grid/compat-ag translates supported rowData, columnDefs, sorting, filtering, pagination, renderer metadata, grid state, and server-mode hints. Its diagnostics identify unsupported options, manual work, and Pro or Enterprise requirements. The report is an inventory aid, not a promise of drop-in parity.
Prove the workflow with the same data
Run the existing and migrated grids against representative records. Test edit commit and cancellation, keyboard navigation, selection persistence, filtering, sorting, pinned rows and columns, custom cells, exports, and remote requests. Migrate only when Ace Grid solves a real licensing, ownership, workflow, or product-direction problem.
Choose the Ace Grid tier from requirements
Do not choose a package from the size of the company or dataset. Use Core when the product needs an editable, filterable, virtualized React grid with CSV workflows. Evaluate Pro when formulas, validation, Excel I/O, grouping, tree data, sparklines, spanning, or advanced filtering are required. Enterprise is relevant when the application needs server row model behavior, charts, pivoting, or master-detail. This mapping should be completed before comparing commercial terms.
Estimate migration work honestly
Separate mechanical translation from product verification. Mechanical work includes imports, props, row and column shapes, themes, and adapter diagnostics. Product work includes renderer behavior, editor lifecycle, keyboard navigation, accessibility, server query semantics, saved column state, exports, and user training. Estimate each grid independently because a simple read-only report and a heavily customized operational workspace can have very different migration costs.
Use parity tests instead of screenshots
Pixel similarity is not functional parity. Write task-based tests such as editing a value and receiving a server rejection, selecting rows across a filter change, restoring column state, navigating pinned and virtualized cells by keyboard, or retrying a failed data block. Run the same fixtures and tasks against both implementations. This makes differences visible before broad rollout and provides a defensible basis for deciding whether migration benefits exceed its cost.
Plan rollout and rollback
Move one representative, non-critical grid first. Put the new implementation behind a feature flag, preserve the previous route, and monitor errors plus task completion. Avoid migrating every screen at once because shared defects become difficult to isolate. Roll forward by repeated grid patterns only after the first screen meets acceptance criteria. Keep rollback possible until state persistence, exports, permissions, and backend mutations have been exercised with representative production data.
Compare ownership after migration
Evaluate who will own grid behavior after the move. Review release cadence, source visibility, support expectations, package boundaries, theme customization, and the amount of application glue required. A successful migration should leave the team with a clearer ownership model, not only a different dependency. Document which behavior comes from Ace Grid, which remains application code, and which server contracts must be maintained independently.
Use a decision record
Capture the problem being solved, alternatives considered, required workflows, prototype results, commercial assumptions, migration estimate, unresolved risks, and rollback plan. State reasons to stay with AG Grid as clearly as reasons to move. A written decision prevents the project from becoming a cosmetic rewrite and gives engineering, product, security, accessibility, and procurement a shared basis for approval.
Verify saved state and server behavior
Migration tests should restore column order, width, visibility, filters, sorting, selection, and route state from realistic saved preferences. For remote grids, compare request ranges, sorting and filtering semantics, cancellation, cache invalidation, total-row behavior, and error recovery. These contracts often matter more than the initial render because they connect the grid to durable user preferences and backend APIs.
Migration-shaped Ace Grid example
import { translateAgGridToAce } from "@ace-grid/compat-ag";
import { Grid } from "@ace-grid/core";
const migration = translateAgGridToAce({
columnDefs,
rowData,
defaultColDef,
});
export function MigratedGrid() {
return (
<Grid {...migration.props} />
);
}AG Grid migration map
When not to migrate
- Stay with AG Grid if your app depends heavily on AG Grid-specific enterprise APIs that you do not want to re-test.
- Do not migrate only for cosmetics; migrate when adoption path, workflow fit, or ownership model is a real problem.
Common questions
Is Ace Grid a drop-in AG Grid replacement?
No. The adapter reduces configuration translation work, but custom renderers, editors, server behavior, and Enterprise APIs require review and testing.
What should a proof of concept include?
Use one representative production grid with real column types, editing rules, filters, keyboard tasks, server requests, and acceptance criteria.