Pros of G6

• More comprehensive graph visualization library with a wider range of features
• Active development and frequent updates
• Extensive documentation and examples

Cons of G6

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Larger file size and potentially higher performance overhead

Code Comparison

G6:

import G6 from '@antv/g6';

const graph = new G6.Graph({
  container: 'mountNode',
  width: 800,
  height: 600,
});

graph.data(data);
graph.render();

Dagre:

var g = new dagre.graphlib.Graph();
g.setGraph({});
g.setDefaultEdgeLabel(function() { return {}; });

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

Summary

G6 is a more feature-rich and actively maintained graph visualization library, offering a wide range of customization options and graph types. However, it may be overkill for simpler projects and has a steeper learning curve. Dagre, on the other hand, is more focused on graph layout algorithms and is easier to use for basic graph rendering tasks, but lacks some of the advanced features and customization options provided by G6.

Pros of Cytoscape.js

• More comprehensive graph visualization library with a wider range of features
• Supports various graph layouts, including force-directed and hierarchical
• Active development and larger community support

Cons of Cytoscape.js

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive API and features
• Larger file size, which may impact load times for simpler graph visualizations

Code Comparison

Dagre:

var g = new dagre.graphlib.Graph();
g.setNode("A", { label: "Node A" });
g.setNode("B", { label: "Node B" });
g.setEdge("A", "B");
dagre.layout(g);

Cytoscape.js:

var cy = cytoscape({
  elements: [
    { data: { id: 'A', label: 'Node A' } },
    { data: { id: 'B', label: 'Node B' } },
    { data: { source: 'A', target: 'B' } }
  ],
  layout: { name: 'dagre' }
});

Both libraries offer graph visualization capabilities, but Cytoscape.js provides a more feature-rich environment for complex graph manipulations and visualizations. Dagre, on the other hand, focuses primarily on directed graph layouts and may be more suitable for simpler use cases or as a layout engine for other visualization libraries.

Pros of vis-network

• More comprehensive library with additional features for data visualization
• Active development and regular updates
• Extensive documentation and examples

Cons of vis-network

• Larger file size and potentially higher resource usage
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API

Code Comparison

vis-network:

var nodes = new vis.DataSet([
  {id: 1, label: 'Node 1'},
  {id: 2, label: 'Node 2'},
]);
var edges = new vis.DataSet([
  {from: 1, to: 2},
]);
var container = document.getElementById('mynetwork');
var data = {nodes: nodes, edges: edges};
var options = {};
var network = new vis.Network(container, data, options);

dagre:

var g = new dagre.graphlib.Graph();
g.setNode("1", { label: "Node 1" });
g.setNode("2", { label: "Node 2" });
g.setEdge("1", "2");
dagre.layout(g);

vis-network offers a more feature-rich API for creating interactive network visualizations, while dagre focuses on graph layout algorithms. vis-network provides built-in interactivity and styling options, whereas dagre requires additional libraries for rendering. The code comparison shows that vis-network has a more object-oriented approach, while dagre uses a simpler graph structure. Both libraries have their strengths, and the choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project.

Pros of react-diagrams

• Built specifically for React, offering seamless integration with React applications
• Provides a more interactive and customizable user interface out-of-the-box
• Includes features like drag-and-drop functionality and real-time updates

Cons of react-diagrams

• More complex setup and learning curve compared to dagre's simpler API
• Limited to React applications, while dagre is framework-agnostic
• May have performance issues with very large graphs due to its interactive nature

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);

dagre:

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");

Pros of mxgraph

• More comprehensive and feature-rich, offering a wide range of graph types and customization options
• Supports both client-side and server-side rendering, providing flexibility for different use cases
• Includes a built-in UI library for creating interactive graph editors

Cons of mxgraph

• Larger file size and potentially higher learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Less focused on specific graph types, which may lead to more complex implementation for simple use cases
• Requires more setup and configuration compared to Dagre's simpler API

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();
}

Dagre:

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);