jsplumb

Pros of sigma.js

• Specialized for graph and network visualization
• Highly performant for rendering large-scale graphs
• Extensive customization options for node and edge styling

Cons of sigma.js

• Limited to graph-based visualizations
• Steeper learning curve for non-graph-specific use cases
• Less suitable for general-purpose diagramming

Code Comparison

sigma.js:

var s = new sigma({
  graph: {
    nodes: [
      { id: "n1", label: "Node 1" },
      { id: "n2", label: "Node 2" }
    ],
    edges: [
      { id: "e1", source: "n1", target: "n2" }
    ]
  },
  container: 'graph-container'
});

jsPlumb:

jsPlumb.ready(function() {
  jsPlumb.connect({
    source: "element1",
    target: "element2",
    anchor: ["Top", "Bottom"]
  });
});

sigma.js is focused on graph rendering, with nodes and edges defined in a data structure. jsPlumb, on the other hand, connects DOM elements directly, making it more suitable for general diagramming and UI-based connections. sigma.js excels in large-scale graph visualization, while jsPlumb offers more flexibility for diverse diagramming needs.

Pros of vis

• More comprehensive data visualization capabilities, including networks, timelines, and graphs
• Larger and more active community, with frequent updates and contributions
• Extensive documentation and examples for various use cases

Cons of vis

• Steeper learning curve due to its broader feature set
• Larger file size, which may impact page load times for simpler projects
• Less focused on connection-based visualizations compared to jsPlumb

Code Comparison

vis:

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 network = new vis.Network(container, {nodes: nodes, edges: edges}, options);

jsPlumb:

jsPlumb.ready(function() {
  var instance = jsPlumb.getInstance();
  instance.connect({
    source: "element1",
    target: "element2",
    anchor: ["Top", "Bottom"]
  });
});

Both libraries offer ways to create connections between elements, but vis provides a more data-driven approach with its DataSet objects, while jsPlumb focuses on DOM-based connections with a more straightforward API for basic connection scenarios.

Pros of Cytoscape.js

• More powerful graph theory algorithms and analysis capabilities
• Better performance for large-scale networks and complex visualizations
• Extensive documentation and active community support

Cons of Cytoscape.js

• Steeper learning curve for basic usage compared to jsPlumb
• Less intuitive for simple drag-and-drop diagramming tasks
• May be overkill for projects that don't require advanced graph features

Code Comparison

jsPlumb:

jsPlumb.ready(function() {
  jsPlumb.connect({
    source: "element1",
    target: "element2",
    anchor: ["Top", "Bottom"]
  });
});

Cytoscape.js:

var cy = cytoscape({
  container: document.getElementById('cy'),
  elements: [
    { data: { id: 'element1' } },
    { data: { id: 'element2' } },
    { data: { source: 'element1', target: 'element2' } }
  ]
});

Both libraries allow for creating connections between elements, but Cytoscape.js uses a more data-driven approach, defining nodes and edges as part of the graph structure. jsPlumb focuses on DOM elements and provides a simpler API for basic connection tasks, while Cytoscape.js offers more flexibility and power for complex graph visualizations and analysis.

Pros of dagre

• Specialized in directed graph layouts, offering efficient algorithms for complex graph structures
• Lightweight and focused on graph layout, making it easier to integrate with other visualization libraries
• Better performance for large graphs with many nodes and edges

Cons of dagre

• Limited to graph layout calculations, requiring additional libraries for rendering and interactivity
• Less out-of-the-box functionality for connecting and manipulating elements compared to jsPlumb
• Steeper learning curve for users not familiar with graph theory concepts

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);

jsPlumb:

jsPlumb.ready(function() {
  jsPlumb.connect({
    source: "elementA",
    target: "elementB",
    anchor: "AutoDefault"
  });
});

Summary

dagre excels in graph layout calculations, offering better performance for complex graphs. However, it requires additional libraries for rendering and interaction. jsPlumb provides a more comprehensive solution for connecting and manipulating DOM elements but may be less efficient for large-scale graph layouts.

Pros of vis-network

• More focused on network visualization and graph layouts
• Offers a wider range of graph algorithms and analysis tools
• Better performance for large-scale networks with thousands of nodes

Cons of vis-network

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Less flexible for general-purpose diagramming and flowcharting
• Limited built-in support for custom node and edge styles

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 network = new vis.Network(container, {nodes: nodes, edges: edges}, options);

jsPlumb:

jsPlumb.ready(function() {
  var instance = jsPlumb.getInstance();
  instance.connect({
    source: "element1",
    target: "element2",
    anchor: ["Top", "Bottom"]
  });
});

vis-network is better suited for complex network visualizations and graph analysis, while jsPlumb excels in creating interactive, drag-and-drop diagramming interfaces with more customization options for connections. The code examples demonstrate the different approaches: vis-network uses datasets and a network object, while jsPlumb focuses on connecting DOM elements directly.

Pros of G6

• More comprehensive graph visualization capabilities, including various layouts and graph algorithms
• Better performance for large-scale graph rendering
• Extensive documentation and examples for different use cases

Cons of G6

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Less focused on connection-based diagrams compared to jsPlumb

Code Comparison

G6 example:

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

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

jsPlumb example:

const instance = jsPlumb.getInstance();
instance.connect({
  source: 'element1',
  target: 'element2',
  anchor: ['Left', 'Right'],
});

G6 is more suited for complex graph visualizations with various layouts and algorithms, while jsPlumb excels in creating connection-based diagrams with a simpler API. G6 offers better performance for large-scale graphs but may require more time to learn. jsPlumb is easier to get started with for basic connection diagrams but may have limitations for more advanced graph visualizations.