Download websites that use Quill

About Quill

A rich text editor is one of the few front-end components that tells you what a site is for. Nobody loads Quill to render a marketing page. The library shows up where people type into the site rather than read from it: comment boxes, support tickets, internal tools, publishing back ends, notes, messaging, anywhere content is produced instead of consumed.

The technical design explains why teams choose it. Released in 2014 under a BSD licence and written in JavaScript, the editor represents a document as a sequence of operations rather than as a blob of markup, which gives an application programmatic control over content and a workable foundation for collaborative editing. Custom formats, modules and themes extend it, and it does not tie the surrounding application to any particular framework.

As of September 2026 we detect the editor on 33,649 sites in the Rich text editors category, 14,532 of them in United States and .com the dominant suffix. The distribution reflects where software products are built and sold rather than where the general web lives, which is what you would expect from a component that only appears once a site has an authenticated user or a form worth taking seriously.

Version behaviour reinforces the point. 24 versions appear in the data and 1.3.6 is the one we see most often, a concentration on a long-lived release line rather than a spread across the newest ones. Editors are expensive to move because the stored content is shaped by the editor's own document model, so migrations mean touching historical data, not just swapping a dependency. Teams postpone that, and the postponement shows up as a population sitting on a proven line well after newer work exists.

Two limits are worth stating. The first is that most editors live behind a login, and we crawl what is publicly reachable, so a large share of real deployments is invisible to us by construction. The second is bundling: applications that compile the editor into one application file leave nothing recognisable in the page. Both effects push the same way, which means the count is a floor and the visible population leans toward public-facing forms and sites that load the library as a separate asset.

Within those bounds the list answers questions a per-domain lookup cannot. Vendors selling collaboration infrastructure, moderation, spam filtering or content storage want to know which sites accept user-authored content at all, since that is the qualifying condition for the whole category. Security researchers want the population because editors are a recurring source of sanitisation problems, and a sanitisation bug matters in proportion to how many sites have the component exposed. Competing editor projects want to know the size and geography of the installed base before deciding whether a migration path is worth building. All of those are population questions, answerable from an extract, and unanswerable one domain at a time.