homarr

Pros of Heimdall

• More established project with a larger user base and community support
• Offers a wider range of customization options for dashboard appearance
• Supports multiple users with different access levels

Cons of Heimdall

• Less frequent updates and slower development cycle
• More resource-intensive, especially for larger dashboards
• Limited integration capabilities compared to Homarr

Code Comparison

Heimdall (PHP):

public function index()
{
    $apps = App::all();
    return view('dash', compact('apps'));
}

Homarr (JavaScript):

export async function getServerSideProps() {
  const apps = await getApps();
  return { props: { apps } };
}

Both projects aim to provide a dashboard for self-hosted services, but they differ in their approach and implementation. Heimdall is built with PHP and Laravel, offering a more traditional web application structure. Homarr, on the other hand, is developed using Next.js and React, providing a modern, responsive interface.

Heimdall's code focuses on server-side rendering and database interactions, while Homarr leverages JavaScript and client-side rendering for a more dynamic user experience. Homarr also includes features like service monitoring and integration with external APIs, which are not present in Heimdall.

Overall, the choice between these two projects depends on specific requirements, such as desired features, performance needs, and development preferences.

Pros of Flame

• More customizable appearance with themes and custom CSS
• Supports multiple users with different permissions
• Includes a built-in weather widget

Cons of Flame

• Less active development and fewer recent updates
• Limited integration options compared to Homarr
• Lacks advanced features like system monitoring

Code Comparison

Flame (JavaScript):

const App = () => {
  return (
    <ThemeProvider theme={theme}>
      <Router>
        <Switch>
          <Route exact path="/" component={Home} />
          <Route path="/settings" component={Settings} />
        </Switch>
      </Router>
    </ThemeProvider>
  );
};

Homarr (TypeScript):

const App: React.FC = () => {
  return (
    <ConfigProvider>
      <ThemeProvider>
        <Layout>
          <AppContent />
        </Layout>
      </ThemeProvider>
    </ConfigProvider>
  );
};

Both projects use React for their frontend, but Homarr utilizes TypeScript for improved type safety and developer experience. Flame's routing is more explicit, while Homarr uses a custom Layout component to handle page structure.

Homarr offers more extensive customization options and integrations, making it suitable for users who need advanced features and frequent updates. Flame, on the other hand, provides a simpler setup with built-in multi-user support and theming, which may be preferable for users seeking a more straightforward dashboard solution.

Pros of Homer

• Simpler setup and configuration using YAML files
• Lightweight and faster to load, especially for users with slower connections
• More customizable themes and color schemes out of the box

Cons of Homer

• Less feature-rich compared to Homarr's advanced functionalities
• Limited integration capabilities with external services and APIs
• Lacks real-time updates and dynamic content without manual refresh

Code Comparison

Homer (YAML configuration):

services:
  - name: "My Service"
    logo: "assets/tools/sample.png"
    url: "https://example.com"
    target: "_blank"

Homarr (React component):

<Card
  title="My Service"
  icon={<img src="assets/tools/sample.png" alt="Service Icon" />}
  url="https://example.com"
  openInNewTab={true}
/>

Both Homer and Homarr are dashboard solutions for self-hosted services, but they cater to different user needs. Homer focuses on simplicity and ease of use, making it ideal for users who prefer a straightforward setup. Homarr, on the other hand, offers more advanced features and integrations, making it suitable for users who require a more dynamic and feature-rich dashboard experience. The choice between the two depends on the user's specific requirements and technical expertise.

Pros of Organizr

• More mature project with a larger user base and community
• Offers user authentication and access control features
• Supports plugins for extended functionality

Cons of Organizr

• Heavier resource usage due to PHP backend
• Less modern UI design compared to Homarr
• Steeper learning curve for setup and configuration

Code Comparison

Organizr (PHP):

<?php
$config = new Config();
$organizrAuth = new OrganizrAuth($config);
$user = $organizrAuth->getUser();
if ($user->isAuthenticated()) {
    // User is logged in
}

Homarr (JavaScript):

import { useUser } from '@/hooks/useUser';

const { user, isLoading } = useUser();
if (user && !isLoading) {
  // User is logged in
}

Both Organizr and Homarr are self-hosted dashboard solutions for managing web services and applications. Organizr is a more established project with a larger feature set, including user management and access control. However, it may require more resources and have a steeper learning curve. Homarr, on the other hand, offers a more modern and lightweight approach with a focus on simplicity and ease of use. The code comparison shows the difference in authentication approaches, with Organizr using a PHP backend and Homarr leveraging React hooks for user management.

Pros of Homepage

• More customizable layout with grid-based design
• Supports a wider range of services and integrations
• Offers more detailed system monitoring features

Cons of Homepage

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex configuration
• Less user-friendly interface for beginners
• Requires more setup time compared to Homarr

Code Comparison

Homarr configuration (YAML):

services:
  - name: Plex
    icon: plex
    url: http://plex.local:32400
  - name: Sonarr
    icon: sonarr
    url: http://sonarr.local:8989

Homepage configuration (YAML):

services:
  - name: Plex
    icon: plex
    href: http://plex.local:32400
    widget:
      type: plex
      url: http://plex.local:32400
      key: your-plex-api-key
  - name: Sonarr
    icon: sonarr
    href: http://sonarr.local:8989
    widget:
      type: sonarr
      url: http://sonarr.local:8989
      key: your-sonarr-api-key

The code comparison shows that Homepage requires more detailed configuration, including widget types and API keys, while Homarr's setup is simpler but less feature-rich.