[mcrittenden]

Features and functionality wise they're pretty much at the same level. Foundation uses Sass instead of Less so that is a pro to some people.

Personally, my main reason for using Foundation over Bootstrap is that it's not Bootstrap, meaning for side projects and demo sites I can leave the default styles without people complaining about "another Bootstrap site".

[tptacek]

Maybe you should play around with Bootstrap a bit more just so you can learn not to care when people snark about "another Bootstrap site", because nobody who's really ready to spend money to have a computer solve one of their problems cares (or likely even groks) what web framework you used.

[mcrittenden]

Agreed. I'm not talking about startups or things I want money for. I'm talking about random 1-off side projects built for other tech-savvy people or open source projects.

For example, I launched http://toogl.es recently on Foundation and it gets a lot of developer or other technical users.

[wilfra]

is toogl.es pretty much what a stock foundation site looks like?

[BaconJuice]

Yes,this site is using the default css with no modifications as far as I can tell.

[mcrittenden]

Yeah, pretty much, besides using FontAwesome and a couple tweaks here and there.

[Kerrick]

That was true for Foundation 3, but Foundation 4 is changing the game a bit. ZURB now seems to be focusing more on Mobile-First than Bootstrap: between media queries expanding the mobile site for desktops (rather than slimming the desktop site for mobiles) and switching to Zepto.js by default,which forgoes all Internet Explorer compatibility (though you can switch back to jQuery no problem), Foundation and Bootstrap seem to be diverging.