Pros of andOTP

• Supports HOTP (counter-based) tokens in addition to TOTP
• Offers a more minimalist and straightforward user interface
• Includes a built-in QR code scanner for easy token addition

Cons of andOTP

• Less frequent updates and potentially slower bug fixes
• Fewer advanced features compared to Aegis (e.g., no biometric unlock)
• Limited customization options for app appearance and behavior

Code Comparison

Both projects are open-source Android applications written in Java. Here's a brief comparison of how they handle token generation:

andOTP:

public static String generateOTP(byte[] secret, long counter) {
    byte[] data = ByteBuffer.allocate(8).putLong(counter).array();
    return TOTP.generateTOTP(secret, data, DIGITS, ALGORITHM);
}

Aegis:

public static String generateOTP(byte[] secret, long counter) {
    byte[] data = ByteBuffer.allocate(8).putLong(counter).array();
    return TOTP.generateTOTP(secret, data, DIGITS, HASH_ALGORITHM);
}

Both implementations use similar approaches for OTP generation, with minor differences in variable naming and method organization.

Pros of 2fas-android

• Supports cloud synchronization for easy backup and multi-device use
• Offers a more modern and user-friendly interface
• Includes additional features like custom icons and widget support

Cons of 2fas-android

• Less focus on privacy; cloud sync may raise security concerns for some users
• Fewer advanced options for power users compared to Aegis
• Relatively newer project with a smaller community and less extensive testing

Code Comparison

Aegis (Kotlin):

override fun onCreateOptionsMenu(menu: Menu): Boolean {
    menuInflater.inflate(R.menu.menu_main, menu)
    _menu = menu
    updateLockIcon()
    return true
}

2fas-android (Kotlin):

override fun onCreateOptionsMenu(menu: Menu): Boolean {
    menuInflater.inflate(R.menu.menu_main, menu)
    searchMenuItem = menu.findItem(R.id.action_search)
    setupSearchView()
    return true
}

Both projects use Kotlin and follow similar patterns for menu creation, but 2fas-android includes additional setup for search functionality in its main menu.

Pros of Google Authenticator

• Developed and maintained by Google, ensuring reliability and regular updates
• Simple and straightforward user interface
• Widely recognized and trusted by many services

Cons of Google Authenticator

• Limited backup and export options
• Lacks advanced features like custom icons or categories
• No built-in encryption for stored tokens

Code Comparison

Aegis uses Kotlin and follows a more modern Android development approach:

class AuthenticatorFragment : Fragment() {
    private lateinit var binding: FragmentAuthenticatorBinding
    
    override fun onCreateView(inflater: LayoutInflater, container: ViewGroup?, savedInstanceState: Bundle?): View {
        binding = FragmentAuthenticatorBinding.inflate(inflater, container, false)
        return binding.root
    }
}

Google Authenticator primarily uses Java with some older Android patterns:

public class AuthenticatorActivity extends Activity {
    @Override
    protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
        super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
        setContentView(R.layout.main);
    }
}

Both repositories implement two-factor authentication functionality, but Aegis offers a more feature-rich and modern approach, while Google Authenticator focuses on simplicity and widespread adoption.

Pros of FreeOTP

• Simpler and more lightweight application
• Open-source and maintained by Red Hat, a reputable company
• Supports both HOTP and TOTP protocols

Cons of FreeOTP

• Lacks advanced features like encrypted backups
• Less frequent updates and development activity
• Limited customization options for users

Code Comparison

FreeOTP (Java):

public class Token implements Comparable<Token> {
    public static final String TOTP = "totp";
    public static final String HOTP = "hotp";
    private String issuerInt;
    private String issuerExt;
    private String label;
    private String imageUrl;
}

Aegis (Kotlin):

data class VaultEntry(
    var type: OTPType,
    var uuid: UUID = UUID.randomUUID(),
    var name: String = "",
    var issuer: String = "",
    var icon: VaultEntryIcon? = null,
    var info: OTPInfo,
    var period: Int = DEFAULT_PERIOD
)

The code comparison shows that Aegis uses Kotlin and has a more modern, data-class approach for token representation. FreeOTP uses Java and a traditional class structure. Aegis seems to have more built-in fields for customization, while FreeOTP's implementation is simpler.

Pros of AuthPass

• Cross-platform support (Android, iOS, Windows, macOS, Linux)
• Built with Flutter, allowing for a consistent UI across platforms
• Supports KeePass file format, providing compatibility with existing password databases

Cons of AuthPass

• Less focused on two-factor authentication (2FA) compared to Aegis
• May have a steeper learning curve for users new to password managers
• Smaller community and potentially slower development pace

Code Comparison

AuthPass (Dart/Flutter):

class PasswordList extends StatelessWidget {
  @override
  Widget build(BuildContext context) {
    return ListView.builder(
      itemBuilder: (context, index) => PasswordListItem(password: passwords[index]),
    );
  }
}

Aegis (Java/Android):

public class EntryAdapter extends RecyclerView.Adapter<EntryHolder> {
    @Override
    public EntryHolder onCreateViewHolder(ViewGroup parent, int viewType) {
        View view = LayoutInflater.from(parent.getContext()).inflate(R.layout.card_entry, parent, false);
        return new EntryHolder(view);
    }
}

Both repositories focus on secure password management, but with different approaches. Aegis is specifically designed for Android and emphasizes 2FA, while AuthPass aims for cross-platform compatibility using Flutter. The code snippets showcase the different languages and frameworks used in each project, reflecting their distinct development approaches.