Comparison · Salsita vs Obox
The Salsita alternative with deeper jewelry rendering.
- Real-time ray-traced gemstones - actual physics, not PBR approximation.
- WebAssembly performance - parses and executes faster than JavaScript on mobile.
- Dormant on the PDP - zero CWV impact until a shopper interacts.
- Engineering partnership - your catalog, our build, beyond off-the-shelf templates.
Drops into your existing stack
At a glance
Two jewelry-focused 3D configurators - where they overlap, and where the engineering diverges.
| Criterion | Obox | Salsita |
|---|---|---|
| Industry focus |
Jewelry-only - rings, pendants, bridal, custom pieces
|
Jewelry plus retail, AR, and broader visual-commerce projects
|
| Gemstone rendering |
Real-time ray-tracing - dispersion, refraction, internal reflections
|
PBR / standard 3D shaders
|
| Rendering stack |
Rust + WebAssembly + WebGL 2.0
|
JavaScript + Three.js
|
| Pricing model |
Sales-led, scoped to catalog and platform
|
Published starter pricing on their site
|
| Mobile approach |
WASM-accelerated; dormant on the product page
|
JavaScript stack
|
| Best for |
Brands where gemstone fidelity is a sales asset
|
Quick implementation with transparent up-front pricing
|
Measured on the live build, not on a marketing slide
172ms
Lighthouse LCP
Lab desktop trace
825kB
Initial transfer
-81% vs baseline
0ms
PDP CWV impact
Dormant until interaction
60fps
Mobile target
Mid-tier devices
Try it yourself
The live demo, embedded right here.
Rotate, swap metals, swap gemstones - this is the same engine you'd ship to your shoppers. Loads only when you scroll to it.
Or open it full-screen in a new tab: /demo →
Choosing between Obox and Salsita
Salsita is a credible jewelry-focused platform. The choice comes down to how much rendering depth and engineering partnership your project needs.
Choose Obox if
- You sell engagement rings, bridal, or fine jewelry where the gemstone is the focal product.
- Mobile performance is a primary concern - WASM-accelerated render, lightweight payload on the PDP.
- Your configuration logic goes beyond a standard template - stone-setting variations, custom alloys, complex inventory constraints.
- You want an engineering partner who builds the integration with your team, not just a SaaS contract.
Choose Salsita if
- Up-front cost transparency matters more than rendering fidelity for your product mix.
- Standard PBR-rendered gemstones meet your customers' expectations - your AOV doesn't justify ray-traced physics.
- You want a faster, lighter implementation with off-the-shelf SaaS packaging.
01 · Rendering fidelity
Ray-traced gemstones vs PBR approximation.
Salsita and Obox both call themselves jewelry configurators. We agree about who the customer is. The disagreement is about how much of a gemstone's optical behaviour matters in the render.
Most jewelry configurators - Salsita's published examples included - render gemstones using PBR (physically-based rendering) shaders. PBR is fast, broadly correct, and the right answer for metallic and matte surfaces. It cannot represent the chromatic dispersion that produces the rainbow flash inside a diamond, or the multi-bounce internal reflections that make a faceted stone read as glass-clear rather than opaque. Stones rendered through PBR look like coloured spheres. Beautiful, but not gemstones.
Obox computes the gemstone passes through real-time ray-tracing - refraction uses separate IOR values for the red, green, and blue channels, which gives visible chromatic dispersion inside the render. A diamond on our platform breaks light the way a real diamond does. For brands where the stone is the most expensive component of the piece, that gap between "looks like a gemstone" and "looks like a coloured ball" is the gap between converting and losing the sale.
02 · Mobile-first stack
WebAssembly performance, not just JavaScript bundles.
Jewelry browsing is a mobile activity. The phone is the device a shopper uses to consider a ring during a coffee break, on a commute, while comparison-shopping. A configurator that looks great on a Studio Display but stutters on a three-year-old iPhone misses the actual buying moment.
Salsita's stack is JavaScript-based, with Three.js for the WebGL layer (per the technical content their team has published). It works. It also pays the JavaScript parse-and-execute tax on every interaction, and competes with the rest of the page for the main thread.
Obox compiles its renderer to WebAssembly from Rust. WASM modules typically parse and execute faster than equivalent JavaScript on mobile, with more predictable memory behaviour than JavaScript's garbage collector can deliver. On the product page, the widget is dormant - zero impact on Largest Contentful Paint, Cumulative Layout Shift, or Interaction to Next Paint until a shopper interacts.
03 · Engineering-led delivery
Integration partnership, not just a contract.
Salsita's published positioning is Threekit-style off-the-shelf SaaS: standardised tooling at a transparent starter price. That packaging is the right answer when a brand wants speed-to-launch and the configuration rules fit a standard template.
Obox is engineering-led. Each integration is a project: our team scopes the catalog, builds the models if you don't have them, encodes the constraints jewelry actually has - stone-setting depends on band thickness, metal finish interacts with stone colour, pavé adds geometry that depends on the band's curvature - and ships a configurator that fits your brand's specific product line.
Trade-off: longer initial scoping, higher up-front investment, but a result that actually represents your inventory. For high-AOV jewelry brands - engagement rings, bridal, fine jewelry - the per-customer revenue justifies that investment in a way that mid-AOV fashion configurators don't.
Capabilities at a glance
Everything you'd expect, jewelry-specialised.
See the gemstone rendering difference.
The live demo runs in your browser. Watch the diamond disperse light across the band as you rotate - the same physics you'd ship to shoppers.