Introducing Zod 4 beta

Refer to the Changelog for a complete list of breaking changes.

Zod 4 is now in beta after over a year of active development. It's faster, slimmer, more tsc-efficient, and implements some long-requested features.

To install the beta:

pnpm upgrade zod@next

Development will continue on the v4 branch over a 4-6 week beta period as I work with libraries to ensure day-one compatibility with the first stable release.

❤️

Huge thanks to Clerk, who supported my work on Zod 4 through their extremely generous OSS Fellowship. They were an amazing partner throughout the (much longer than anticipated!) development process.

Why a new major version?

Zod v3.0 was released in May 2021 (!). Back then Zod had 2700 stars on GitHub and 600k weekly downloads. Today it has 36.5k stars and 23M weekly downloads. After 24 minor versions, the Zod 3 codebase has hit a ceiling; the most commonly requested features and improvements require breaking changes.

Zod 4 implements all of these in one fell swoop. It uses an entirely new internal architecture that solves some long-standing design limitations, lays the groundwork for some long-requested features, and closes 9 of Zod's 10 most upvoted open issues. With luck, it will serve as the new foundation for many more years to come.

For a scannable breakdown of what's new, see the table of contents. Click on any item to jump to that section.

Benchmarks

You can run these benchmarks yourself in the Zod repo:

$ git clone git@github.com:colinhacks/zod.git
$ cd zod
$ git switch v4
$ pnpm install

Then to run a particular benchmark:

$ pnpm bench <name>

2.6x faster string parsing

$ pnpm bench string
runtime: node v22.13.0 (arm64-darwin)
 
benchmark      time (avg)             (min … max)       p75       p99      p999
------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
• z.string().parse
------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
zod3          348 µs/iter       (299 µs … 743 µs)    362 µs    494 µs    634 µs
zod4          132 µs/iter       (108 µs … 348 µs)    162 µs    269 µs    322 µs
 
summary for z.string().parse
  zod4
   2.63x faster than zod3

3x faster array parsing

$ pnpm bench array
runtime: node v22.13.0 (arm64-darwin)
 
benchmark      time (avg)             (min … max)       p75       p99      p999
------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
• z.array() parsing
------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
zod3          162 µs/iter       (141 µs … 753 µs)    152 µs    291 µs    513 µs
zod4       54'282 ns/iter    (47'084 ns … 669 µs) 50'833 ns    185 µs    233 µs
 
summary for z.array() parsing
  zod4
   2.98x faster than zod3

7x faster object parsing

This runs the Moltar validation library benchmark.

$ pnpm bench object-moltar
benchmark      time (avg)             (min … max)       p75       p99      p999
------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
• z.object() safeParse
------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------
zod3          767 µs/iter     (735 µs … 3'136 µs)    775 µs    898 µs  3'136 µs
zod4          110 µs/iter     (102 µs … 1'291 µs)    105 µs    217 µs    566 µs
 
summary for z.object() safeParse
  zod4
   6.98x faster than zod3

20x reduction in `tsc` instantiations

Consider the following simple file:

import * as z from "zod";
 
export const A = z.object({
  a: z.string(),
  b: z.string(),
  c: z.string(),
  d: z.string(),
  e: z.string(),
});
 
export const B = A.extend({
  f: z.string(),
  g: z.string(),
  h: z.string(),
});

Compiling this file with tsc --extendedDiagnostics using zod@3 results in >25000 type instantiations. With zod@4 it only results in ~1100.

The Zod repo contains a tsc benchmarking playground. Try this for yourself using the compiler benchmarks in packages/tsc. The exact numbers may change as the implementation evolves.

$ cd packages/tsc
$ pnpm bench object-with-extend

More importantly, Zod 4 has redesigned and simplified the generics of ZodObject and other schema classes to avoid some pernicious "instantiation explosions". For instance, chaining .extend() and .omit() repeatedly—something that previously caused compiler issues:

import * as z from "zod";
 
export const a = z.object({
  a: z.string(),
  b: z.string(),
  c: z.string(),
});
 
export const b = a.omit({
  a: true,
  b: true,
  c: true,
});
 
export const c = b.extend({
  a: z.string(),
  b: z.string(),
  c: z.string(),
});
 
export const d = c.omit({
  a: true,
  b: true,
  c: true,
});
 
export const e = d.extend({
  a: z.string(),
  b: z.string(),
  c: z.string(),
});
 
export const f = e.omit({
  a: true,
  b: true,
  c: true,
});
 
export const g = f.extend({
  a: z.string(),
  b: z.string(),
  c: z.string(),
});
 
export const h = g.omit({
  a: true,
  b: true,
  c: true,
});
 
export const i = h.extend({
  a: z.string(),
  b: z.string(),
  c: z.string(),
});
 
export const j = i.omit({
  a: true,
  b: true,
  c: true,
});
 
export const k = j.extend({
  a: z.string(),
  b: z.string(),
  c: z.string(),
});
 
export const l = k.omit({
  a: true,
  b: true,
  c: true,
});
 
export const m = l.extend({
  a: z.string(),
  b: z.string(),
  c: z.string(),
});
 
export const n = m.omit({
  a: true,
  b: true,
  c: true,
});
 
export const o = n.extend({
  a: z.string(),
  b: z.string(),
  c: z.string(),
});
 
export const p = o.omit({
  a: true,
  b: true,
  c: true,
});
 
export const q = p.extend({
  a: z.string(),
  b: z.string(),
  c: z.string(),
});

In Zod 3, this took 4000ms to compile; and adding additional calls to .extend() would trigger a "Possibly infinite" error. In Zod 4, this compiles in 400ms, 10x faster.

Coupled with the upcoming tsgo compiler, Zod 4's editor performance will scale to vastly larger schemas and codebases.

2x reduction in core bundle size

Consider the following simple script.

import * as z from "zod";
 
const schema = z.boolean();
 
schema.parse(true);

It's about as simple as it gets when it comes to validation. That's intentional; it's a good way to measure the core bundle size—the code that will end up in the bundle even in simple cases. We'll bundle this with rollup using both Zod 3 and Zod 4 and compare the final bundles.

Package	Bundle (gzip)
`zod@3`	`12.47kb`
`zod@4`	`5.36kb`

The core bundle is ~57% smaller in Zod 4 (2.3x). That's good! But we can do a lot better.

Introducing `@zod/mini`

Zod's method-heavy API is fundamentally difficult to tree-shake. Even our simple z.boolean() script pulls in the implementations of a bunch of methods we didn't use, like .optional(), .array(), etc. Writing slimmer implementations can only get you so far. That's where @zod/mini comes in.

npm install @zod/mini@next

It's a sister library with a functional, tree-shakable API that corresponds one-to-one with zod. Where Zod uses methods, @zod/mini generally uses wrapper functions:

import * as z from "@zod/mini";
 
z.optional(z.string());
 
z.union([z.string(), z.number()]);
 
z.extend(z.object({ /* ... */ }), { age: z.number() });

Not all methods are gone! The parsing methods are identical in zod and @zod/mini.

import * as z from "@zod/mini";
 
z.string().parse("asdf");
z.string().safeParse("asdf");
await z.string().parseAsync("asdf");
await z.string().safeParseAsync("asdf");

There's also a general-purpose .check() method used to add refinements.

import * as z from "@zod/mini";
 
z.array(z.number()).check(
  z.minLength(5), 
  z.maxLength(10),
  z.refine(arr => arr.includes(5))
);

The following top-level refinements are available in @zod/mini. It should be fairly self-explanatory which zod methods they correspond to.

import * as z from "@zod/mini";
 
// custom checks
z.refine();
 
// first-class checks
z.lt(value);
z.lte(value); // alias: z.maximum()
z.gt(value);
z.gte(value); // alias: z.minimum()
z.positive();
z.negative();
z.nonpositive();
z.nonnegative();
z.multipleOf(value);
z.maxSize(value);
z.minSize(value);
z.size(value);
z.maxLength(value);
z.minLength(value);
z.length(value);
z.regex(regex);
z.lowercase();
z.uppercase();
z.includes(value);
z.startsWith(value);
z.endsWith(value);
z.property(key, schema); // for object schemas; check `input[key]` against `schema`
z.mime(value); // for file schemas (see below)
 
// overwrites (these *do not* change the inferred type!)
z.overwrite(value => newValue);
z.normalize();
z.trim();
z.toLowerCase();
z.toUpperCase();

This more functional API makes it easier for bundlers to tree-shaking the APIs you don't use. While zod is still recommended for the majority of use cases, any projects with uncommonly strict bundle size constraints should consider @zod/mini.

6.6x reduction in core bundle size

Here's the script from above, updated to use "@zod/mini" instead of "zod".

import * as z from "@zod/mini";
 
const schema = z.boolean();
schema.parse(false);

When we build this with rollup, the gzipped bundle size is 1.88kb. That's an 85% (6.6x) reduction in core bundle size compared to zod@3.

Package	Bundle (gzip)
`zod@3`	`12.47kb`
`zod@4`	`5.36kb`
`@zod/mini`	`1.88kb`

Learn more on the dedicated @zod/mini docs page. Complete API details are mixed into existing documentation pages; code blocks contain separate tabs for zod and @zod/mini wherever their APIs diverge.

Metadata

Zod 4 introduces a new system for adding strongly-typed metadata to your schemas. Metadata isn't stored inside the schema itself; instead it's stored in a "schema registry" that associates a schema with some typed metadata. To create a registry with z.registry():

import * as z from "zod";
 
const myRegistry = z.registry<{ title: string; description: string }>();

To add schemas to your registry:

const emailSchema = z.string().email();
 
myRegistry.add(emailSchema, { title: "Email address", description: "..." });
myRegistry.get(emailSchema);
// => { title: "Email address", ... }

Alternatively, you can use the .register() method on a schema for convenience:

emailSchema.register(myRegistry, { title: "Email address", description: "..." })
// => returns emailSchema

The global registry

Zod also exports a global registry z.globalRegistry that accepts some common JSON Schema-compatible metadata:

z.globalRegistry.add(z.string(), { 
  id: "email_address",
  title: "Email address",
  description: "Provide your email",
  examples: ["naomie@example.com"],
  extraKey: "Additional properties are also allowed"
});

`.meta()`

To conveniently add a schema to z.globalRegistry, use the .meta() method.

z.string().meta({ 
  id: "email_address",
  title: "Email address",
  description: "Provide your email",
  examples: ["naomie@example.com"],
  // ...
});

For compatibility with Zod 3, .describe() is still available, but .meta() is preferred.

z.string().describe("An email address");
 
// equivalent to
z.string().meta({ description: "An email address" });

JSON Schema conversion

Zod 4 introduces first-party JSON Schema conversion via z.toJSONSchema().

import * as z from "zod";
 
const mySchema = z.object({name: z.string(), points: z.number()});
 
z.toJSONSchema(mySchema);
// => {
//   type: "object",
//   properties: {
//     name: {type: "string"},
//     points: {type: "number"},
//   },
//   required: ["name", "points"],
// }

Any metadata in z.globalRegistry is automatically included in the JSON Schema output.

const mySchema = z.object({
  firstName: z.string().describe("Your first name"),
  lastName: z.string().meta({ title: "last_name" }),
  age: z.number().meta({ examples: [12, 99] }),
});
 
z.toJSONSchema(mySchema);
// => {
//   type: 'object',
//   properties: {
//     firstName: { type: 'string', description: 'Your first name' },
//     lastName: { type: 'string', title: 'last_name' },
//     age: { type: 'number', examples: [ 12, 99 ] }
//   },
//   required: [ 'firstName', 'lastName', 'age' ]
// }

Refer to the JSON Schema docs for information on customizing the generated JSON Schema.

`z.interface()`

Zod 4 introduces a new API for defining object types: z.interface(). This may seem surprising or confusing, so I'll briefly explain the reasoning here. (A full blog post on this topic is coming soon.)

Exact(er) optional properties

In TypeScript a property can be "optional" in two distinct ways:

type KeyOptional = { prop?: string };
type ValueOptional = { prop: string | undefined };

In KeyOptional, the prop key can be omitted from the object ("key optional"). In ValueOptional, the prop key must be set however it can be set to undefined ("value optional").

Zod 3 cannot represent ValueOptional. Instead, z.object() automatically adds question marks to any key that accepts a value of undefined:

z.object({ name: z.string().optional() }); 
// { name?: string | undefined }
 
z.object({ name: z.union([z.string(), z.undefined()]) }); 
// { name?: string | undefined }

This includes special schema types like z.unknown():

z.object({ name: z.unknown() }); // { name?: unknown } 
z.object({ name: z.any() }); // { name?: any }

To properly represent "key optionality", Zod needed an object-level API for marking keys as optional, instead of trying to guess based on the value schema.

This is why Zod 4 introduces a new API for defining object types: z.interface().

const ValueOptional = z.interface({ name: z.string().optional()}); 
// { name: string | undefined }
 
const KeyOptional = z.interface({ "name?": z.string() }); 
// { name?: string }

Key optionality is now defined with a ? suffix in the key itself. This way, you have the power to differentiate between key- and value-optionality.

Besides this change to optionality, z.object() and z.interface() are functionality identical. They even use the same parser internally.

The z.object() API is not deprecated; feel free to continue using it if you prefer it! For the sake of backwards compatibility, z.interface() was added as an opt-in API.

True recursive types

But wait there's more! After implementing z.interface(), I had a huge realization. The ?-suffix API in z.interface() lets Zod sidestep a TypeScript limitation that has long prevented Zod from cleanly representing recursive (cyclical) types. Take this example from the old Zod 3 docs:

import * as z from "zod"; // zod@3
 
interface Category  {
  name: string;
  subcategories: Category[];
};
 
const Category: z.ZodType<Category> = z.object({
  name: z.string(),
  subcategories: z.lazy(() => Category.array()),
});

This has been a thorn in my side for years. To define a cyclical object type, you must

define a redundant interface
use z.lazy() to avoid reference errors
cast your schema to z.ZodType

That's terrible.

Here's the same example in Zod 4:

import * as z from "zod"; // zod@4
 
const Category = z.interface({
  name: z.string(),
  get subcategories() {
    return z.array(Category)
  }
});

No casting, no z.lazy(), no redundant type signatures. Just use getters to define any cyclical properties. The resulting instance has all the object methods you expect:

Category.pick({ subcategories: true });

This means Zod can finally represent commonly cyclical data structure like ORM schemas, GraphQL types, etc.

Given its ability to represent both cyclical types and more exact optionality, I recommend always using z.interface() over z.object() without reservation. That said, z.object() will never be deprecated or removed, so feel free to keep using it if you prefer.

File schemas

To validate File instances:

const fileSchema = z.file();
 
fileSchema.min(10_000); // minimum .size (bytes)
fileSchema.max(1_000_000); // maximum .size (bytes)
fileSchema.type("image/png"); // MIME type

Internationalization

Zod 4 introduces a new locales API for globally translating error messages into different languages.

import * as z from "zod";
 
// configure English locale (default)
z.config(z.core.locales.en());

At the time of this writing only the English locale is available; There will be a call for pull request from the community shortly; this section will be updated with a list of supported languages as they become available.

Error pretty-printing

The success of the zod-validation-error package demonstrates that there's significant demand for an official API for pretty-printing errors. If you are using that package currently, by all means continue using it.

Zod now implements a top-level z.prettifyError function for converting a ZodError to a user-friendly formatted string.

const myError = new z.ZodError([
  {
    code: 'unrecognized_keys',
    keys: [ 'extraField' ],
    path: [],
    message: 'Unrecognized key: "extraField"'
  },
  {
    expected: 'string',
    code: 'invalid_type',
    path: [ 'username' ],
    message: 'Invalid input: expected string, received number'
  },
  {
    origin: 'number',
    code: 'too_small',
    minimum: 0,
    inclusive: true,
    path: [ 'favoriteNumbers', 1 ],
    message: 'Too small: expected number to be >=0'
  }
]);
 
z.prettifyError(myError);

This returns the following pretty-printable multi-line string:

✖ Unrecognized key: "extraField"
✖ Invalid input: expected string, received number
  → at username
✖ Invalid input: expected number, received string
  → at favoriteNumbers[1]

Currently the formatting isn't configurable; this may change in the future.

Top-level string formats

All "string formats" (email, etc.) have been promoted to top-level functions on the z module. This is both more concise and more tree-shakable. The method equivalents (z.string().email(), etc.) are still available but have been deprecated. They'll be removed in the next major version.

z.email();
z.uuidv4();
z.uuidv7();
z.uuidv8();
z.ipv4();
z.ipv6();
z.cidrv4();
z.cidrv6();
z.url();
z.e164();
z.base64();
z.base64url();
z.jwt();
z.ascii();
z.utf8();
z.lowercase();
z.iso.date();
z.iso.datetime();
z.iso.duration();
z.iso.time();

Custom email regex

The z.email() API now supports a custom regular expression. There is no one canonical email regex; different applications may choose to be more or less strict. For convenience Zod exports some common ones.

// Zod's default email regex (Gmail rules)
// see colinhacks.com/essays/reasonable-email-regex
z.email(); // z.regexes.email
 
// the regex used by browsers to validate input[type=email] fields
// https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/input/email
z.email({ pattern: z.regexes.html5Email });
 
// the classic emailregex.com regex (RFC 5322)
z.email({ pattern: z.regexes.rfc5322Email });
 
// a loose regex that allows Unicode (good for intl emails)
z.email({ pattern: z.regexes.unicodeEmail });

Template literal types

Zod 4 implements z.templateLiteral(). Template literal types are perhaps the biggest feature of TypeScript's type system that wasn't previously representable.

const hello = z.templateLiteral(["hello, ", z.string()]);
// `hello, ${string}`
 
const cssUnits = z.enum(["px", "em", "rem", "%"]);
const css = z.templateLiteral([z.number(), cssUnits]);
// `${number}px` | `${number}em` | `${number}rem` | `${number}%`
 
const email = z.templateLiteral([
  z.string().min(1),
  "@",
  z.string().max(64),
]);
// `${string}@${string}` (the min/max refinements are enforced!)

Every Zod schema type that can be stringified stores an internal regex: strings, string formats like z.email(), numbers, boolean, bigint, enums, literals, undefined/optional, null/nullable, and other template literals. The z.templateLiteral constructor concatenates these into a super-regex, so things like string formats (z.email()) are properly enforced (but custom refinements are not!).

Read the template literal docs for more info.

Number formats

New numeric "formats" have been added for representing fixed-width integer and float types. These return a ZodNumber instance with proper minimum/maximum constraints already added.

z.int();      // [Number.MIN_SAFE_INTEGER, Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER],
z.float32();  // [-3.4028234663852886e38, 3.4028234663852886e38]
z.float64();  // [-1.7976931348623157e308, 1.7976931348623157e308]
z.int32();    // [-2147483648, 2147483647]
z.uint32();   // [0, 4294967295]

Similarly the following bigint numeric formats have also been added. These integer types exceed what can be safely represented by a number in JavaScript, so these return a ZodBigInt instance with the proper minimum/maximum constraints already added.

z.int64();    // [-9223372036854775808n, 9223372036854775807n]
z.uint64();   // [0n, 18446744073709551615n]

Stringbool

The existing z.coerce.boolean() API is very simple: falsy values (false, undefined, null, 0, "", NaN etc) become false, truthy values become true.

This is still a good API, and its behavior aligns with the other z.coerce APIs. But some users requested a more sophisticated "env-style" boolean coercion. To support this, Zod 4 introduces z.stringbool():

const strbool = z.stringbool();
 
strbool.parse("true")         // => true
strbool.parse("1")            // => true
strbool.parse("yes")          // => true
strbool.parse("on")           // => true
strbool.parse("y")            // => true
strbool.parse("enable")       // => true
 
strbool.parse("false");       // => false
strbool.parse("0");           // => false
strbool.parse("no");          // => false
strbool.parse("off");         // => false
strbool.parse("n");           // => false
strbool.parse("disabled");    // => false
 
strbool.parse(/* anything else */); // ZodError<[{ code: "invalid_value" }]>

To customize the truthy and falsy values:

z.stringbool({
  truthy: ["yes", "true"],
  falsy: ["no", "false"]
})

Refer to the z.stringbool() docs for more information.

Simplified error customization

The majority of breaking changes in Zod 4 involve the error customization APIs. They were a bit of a mess in Zod 3; Zod 4 makes things significantly more elegant, to the point where I think it's worth highlighting here.

Long story short, there is now a single, unified error parameter for customizing errors, replacing the following APIs:

Replace message with error. (The message parameter is still supported but deprecated.)

- z.string().min(5, { message: "Too short." });
+ z.string().min(5, { error: "Too short." });

Replace invalid_type_error and required_error with error (function syntax):

// Zod 3
- z.string({ 
-   required_error: "This field is required" 
-   invalid_type_error: "Not a string", 
- });
 
// Zod 4 
+ z.string({ error: (issue) => issue.input === undefined ? 
+  "This field is required" :
+  "Not a string" 
+ });

Replace errorMap with error (function syntax):

// Zod 3 
- z.string({
-   errorMap: (issue, ctx) => {
-     if (issue.code === "too_small") {
-       return { message: `Value must be >${issue.minimum}` };
-     }
-     return { message: ctx.defaultError };
-   },
- });
 
// Zod 4
+ z.string({
+   error: (issue) => {
+     if (issue.code === "too_small") {
+       return `Value must be >${issue.minimum}`
+     }
+   },
+ });

Upgraded `z.discriminatedUnion()`

Discriminated union support has improved in a couple ways. First, you no longer need to specify the discriminator key. Zod now has a robust way to identify the discriminator key automatically. If no shared discriminator key is found, Zod will throw an error at schema initialization time.

// in Zod 4:
const myUnion = z.discriminatedUnion([
  z.object({ type: z.literal("a"), a: z.string() }),
  z.object({ type: z.literal("b"), b: z.number() }),
]);
 
// in Zod 3:
const myUnion = z.discriminatedUnion("type", [
  z.object({ type: z.literal("a"), a: z.string() }),
  z.object({ type: z.literal("b"), b: z.number() }),
]);

Discriminated unions schema now finally compose—you can use one discriminated union as a member of another. Zod determines the optimal discrimination strategy.

const BaseError = z.object({ status: z.literal("failed"), message: z.string() });
const MyErrors = z.discriminatedUnion([
  BaseError.extend({ code: z.literal(400) }),
  BaseError.extend({ code: z.literal(401) }),
  BaseError.extend({ code: z.literal(500) })
]);
 
const MyResult = z.discriminatedUnion([
  z.interface({ status: z.literal("success"), data: z.string() }),
  MyErrors
]);

Multiple values in `z.literal()`

The z.literal() API now optionally supports multiple values.

const httpCodes = z.literal([ 200, 201, 202, 204, 206, 207, 208, 226 ]);
 
// previously in Zod 3:
const httpCodes = z.union([
  z.literal(200),
  z.literal(201),
  z.literal(202),
  z.literal(204),
  z.literal(206),
  z.literal(207),
  z.literal(208),
  z.literal(226)
]);

In Zod 3, they were stored in a ZodEffects class that wrapped the original schema. This was inconvenient, as it meant you couldn't interleave .refine() with other schema methods like .min().

z.string()
  .refine(val => val.includes("@"))
  .min(5);
// ^ ❌ Property 'min' does not exist on type ZodEffects<ZodString, string, string>

In Zod 4, refinements are stored inside the schemas themselves, so the code above works as expected.

z.string()
  .refine(val => val.includes("@"))
  .min(5); // ✅

`.overwrite()`

The .transform() method is extremely useful, but it has one major downside: the output type is no longer introspectable at runtime. The transform function is a black box that can return anything. This means (among other things) there's no sound way to convert the schema to JSON Schema.

const Squared = z.number().transform(val => val ** 2);
// => ZodPipe<ZodNumber, ZodTransform>

Zod 4 introduces a new .overwrite() method for representing transforms that don't change the inferred type. Unlike .transform(), this method returns an instance of the original class. The overwrite function is stored as a refinement, so it doesn't (and can't) modify the inferred type.

z.number().overwrite(val => val ** 2).max(100);
// => ZodNumber

The existing .trim(), .toLowerCase() and .toUpperCase() methods have been reimplemented using .overwrite().

An extensible foundation: `@zod/core`

While this will not be relevant to the majority of Zod users, it's worth highlighting. The addition of @zod/mini necessitated the creation of a third package @zod/core that contains the core functionality shared between zod and @zod/mini.

I was resistant to this at first, but now I see it as one of Zod 4's most important features. It lets Zod level up from a simple library to a fast validation "substrate" that can be sprinkled into other libraries.

If you're building a schema library, refer to the implementations of zod and @zod/mini to see how to build on top of the foundation @zod/core provides. Don't hesitate to get in touch in GitHub discussions or via X/Bluesky for help or feedback.

Wrapping up

I'm planning to write up a series of additional posts explaining the design process and rationale behind some major features like @zod/mini and z.interface(). I'll update this section as those get posted.

Zod 4 will remain in beta for roughly 6 weeks as I work with library authors and major adopters to ensure a smooth day-one transition from Zod 3 to Zod 4. I encourage all users of Zod to upgrade their installation and provide feedback during the beta window.

pnpm upgrade zod@next

Happy parsing!
— Colin McDonnell @colinhacks

Introducing Zod 4 beta

On this page