X6

Pros of GGEditor

• More user-friendly and easier to get started with for beginners
• Provides a complete graph editing solution out-of-the-box
• Better integration with React components

Cons of GGEditor

• Less flexible and customizable compared to X6
• Fewer advanced features and graph types supported
• Less active development and community support

Code Comparison

GGEditor:

import GGEditor, { Flow } from 'gg-editor';

const FlowChart = () => (
  <GGEditor>
    <Flow />
  </GGEditor>
);

X6:

import { Graph } from '@antv/x6';

const graph = new Graph({
  container: document.getElementById('container'),
  width: 800,
  height: 600,
});

Summary

GGEditor is a more straightforward solution for creating graph editors, especially for React-based projects. It offers a quicker setup and easier integration but sacrifices some flexibility and advanced features.

X6, on the other hand, provides a more powerful and customizable graph editing framework. It offers greater control over graph rendering and behavior but requires more setup and configuration.

Choose GGEditor for simpler projects or when rapid development is a priority. Opt for X6 when you need more advanced features, customization options, or better performance for large-scale graphs.

Pros of mxgraph

• More mature and established project with a longer history
• Extensive documentation and examples available
• Supports a wider range of browsers, including older versions

Cons of mxgraph

• Larger file size and potentially slower performance
• Less modern API design and syntax
• Limited built-in support for touch devices and mobile interactions

Code Comparison

mxgraph:

var graph = new mxGraph(container);
var parent = graph.getDefaultParent();
graph.getModel().beginUpdate();
try {
  var v1 = graph.insertVertex(parent, null, 'Hello,', 20, 20, 80, 30);
  var v2 = graph.insertVertex(parent, null, 'World!', 200, 150, 80, 30);
  var e1 = graph.insertEdge(parent, null, '', v1, v2);
} finally {
  graph.getModel().endUpdate();
}

X6:

const graph = new Graph({
  container: document.getElementById('container'),
  width: 800,
  height: 600,
});

const source = graph.addNode({
  x: 20,
  y: 20,
  width: 80,
  height: 30,
  label: 'Hello,',
});

const target = graph.addNode({
  x: 200,
  y: 150,
  width: 80,
  height: 30,
  label: 'World!',
});

graph.addEdge({ source, target });

Both libraries offer powerful graph visualization capabilities, but X6 provides a more modern and streamlined API, while mxgraph offers broader compatibility and extensive documentation.

Pros of Joint

• More mature project with longer development history
• Extensive documentation and examples
• Larger community and ecosystem of plugins

Cons of Joint

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Less frequent updates and releases
• Heavier library size

Code Comparison

Joint:

var graph = new joint.dia.Graph;
var paper = new joint.dia.Paper({
    el: $('#paper'),
    width: 600,
    height: 400,
    model: graph
});

X6:

const graph = new Graph({
  container: document.getElementById('container'),
  width: 800,
  height: 600,
});

Summary

Joint is a more established library with a rich ecosystem, but it may be more challenging for newcomers. X6 offers a more modern approach with easier setup and frequent updates. Joint provides more out-of-the-box features, while X6 focuses on performance and flexibility. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, team expertise, and desired customization level.

Pros of Cytoscape.js

• More mature and established library with a larger community and ecosystem
• Extensive documentation and examples for various graph visualization scenarios
• Built-in support for complex graph algorithms and analysis

Cons of Cytoscape.js

• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to its comprehensive feature set
• Less focus on customizable and interactive diagram editing capabilities
• Performance may degrade with very large graphs (10,000+ elements)

Code Comparison

X6 example:

import { Graph } from '@antv/x6';

const graph = new Graph({
  container: document.getElementById('container'),
  width: 800,
  height: 600,
});

graph.addNode({ x: 100, y: 100, width: 80, height: 40, label: 'Hello' });

Cytoscape.js example:

var cy = cytoscape({
  container: document.getElementById('cy'),
  elements: [
    { data: { id: 'a' }, position: { x: 100, y: 100 } },
    { data: { id: 'b', label: 'Hello' } }
  ],
  style: [ { selector: 'node', style: { 'label': 'data(label)' } } ]
});

Both libraries offer graph visualization capabilities, but X6 focuses more on interactive diagramming, while Cytoscape.js provides a broader set of graph analysis features. X6 may be easier for beginners to start with, while Cytoscape.js offers more advanced functionality for complex graph-based applications.

Pros of dagre

• Lightweight and focused on graph layout algorithms
• Easier to integrate into existing projects due to its simplicity
• Better performance for large graphs with many nodes and edges

Cons of dagre

• Limited built-in rendering capabilities
• Less active development and fewer recent updates
• Fewer out-of-the-box features for graph manipulation and interaction

Code Comparison

X6 example:

import { Graph } from '@antv/x6';

const graph = new Graph({
  container: document.getElementById('container'),
  width: 800,
  height: 600,
});

graph.addNode({ x: 100, y: 100, width: 80, height: 40, label: 'Hello' });

dagre example:

var g = new dagre.graphlib.Graph();

g.setNode("kspacey", { label: "Kevin Spacey", width: 144, height: 100 });
g.setNode("swilliams", { label: "Saul Williams", width: 160, height: 100 });
g.setEdge("kspacey", "swilliams");

dagre.layout(g);

X6 provides a more comprehensive graph manipulation and rendering solution, while dagre focuses on layout algorithms and requires additional libraries for rendering. X6 offers a wider range of features out-of-the-box, but dagre may be more suitable for projects that only need layout capabilities or have specific performance requirements.

Pros of react-diagrams

• Specifically designed for React applications, offering seamless integration
• Simpler API and easier learning curve for React developers
• More lightweight and focused on diagram functionality

Cons of react-diagrams

• Less comprehensive feature set compared to X6
• Limited customization options for advanced use cases
• Smaller community and fewer extensions/plugins available

Code Comparison

react-diagrams:

import { DiagramEngine, DiagramModel, DefaultNodeModel } from '@projectstorm/react-diagrams';

const engine = new DiagramEngine();
const model = new DiagramModel();
const node1 = new DefaultNodeModel('Node 1', 'rgb(0,192,255)');
model.addNode(node1);
engine.setModel(model);

X6:

import { Graph } from '@antv/x6';

const graph = new Graph({
  container: document.getElementById('container'),
  width: 800,
  height: 600,
});
const node = graph.addNode({
  x: 100,
  y: 100,
  label: 'Node 1',
});

Both libraries offer ways to create and manage diagrams, but X6 provides a more flexible and feature-rich API, while react-diagrams focuses on simplicity and React integration. X6 is better suited for complex, customizable diagrams, while react-diagrams is ideal for straightforward React-based diagramming needs.