Pros of OpenClash

• More comprehensive feature set, including advanced routing and policy groups
• Better integration with OpenWrt systems
• Larger and more active community, leading to frequent updates and improvements

Cons of OpenClash

• Higher resource consumption, which may impact performance on low-end devices
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex configuration options
• Potentially less stable on non-OpenWrt systems

Code Comparison

OpenClash configuration example:

proxy-groups:
  - name: "Auto"
    type: url-test
    proxies:
      - "Server1"
      - "Server2"
    url: 'http://www.gstatic.com/generate_204'
    interval: 300

ShellCrash configuration example:

config_group_name="Auto"
config_group_type="url-test"
config_group_proxies="Server1,Server2"
config_group_url="http://www.gstatic.com/generate_204"
config_group_interval=300

While both projects aim to provide Clash functionality on embedded devices, OpenClash offers a more feature-rich experience at the cost of increased complexity and resource usage. ShellCrash, on the other hand, focuses on simplicity and broader compatibility, making it potentially more suitable for users with limited hardware or those seeking a straightforward setup process.

Pros of mihomo

• More active development with frequent updates
• Broader platform support, including mobile devices
• Enhanced performance and stability for handling complex network configurations

Cons of mihomo

• Steeper learning curve for new users
• Less comprehensive documentation compared to ShellCrash

Code Comparison

ShellCrash:

#!/bin/sh
# ShellCrash configuration script
crash_dir="/etc/shellcrash"
config_file="$crash_dir/config.yaml"

mihomo:

package main

import (
    "github.com/Dreamacro/clash/constant"
    "github.com/Dreamacro/clash/hub/executor"
)

Key Differences

• ShellCrash is primarily a shell-based implementation, making it easier to deploy on various systems with minimal dependencies
• mihomo is written in Go, offering better performance and cross-platform compatibility
• ShellCrash focuses on simplicity and ease of use, while mihomo provides more advanced features and customization options

Use Cases

• ShellCrash: Ideal for users who prefer a lightweight, script-based solution and have simpler networking needs
• mihomo: Better suited for power users and those requiring advanced traffic routing capabilities across multiple platforms

Community and Support

Both projects have active communities, but mihomo tends to have more frequent updates and a larger user base, potentially leading to faster issue resolution and feature development.

Pros of yacd

• Focused on providing a clean, modern web dashboard for Clash
• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing Clash setups
• Actively maintained with frequent updates and bug fixes

Cons of yacd

• Limited to Clash configuration and monitoring
• Requires a separate Clash core to function
• Less comprehensive system-wide network management features

Code comparison

yacd (React component):

const ConnectionItem = ({ connection }) => (
  <div className="connection-item">
    <span>{connection.host}</span>
    <span>{connection.chains.join(' > ')}</span>
    <span>{formatTraffic(connection.upload + connection.download)}</span>
  </div>
);

ShellCrash (Shell script):

start_clash() {
  if [ "$mix_port" -ne 7890 ]; then
    sed -i "s/7890/$mix_port/g" $CFG_PATH
  fi
  $clash_bin -d $clash_dir -f $CFG_PATH >/dev/null 2>&1 &
  clash_pid=$!
}

Summary

yacd is a specialized web dashboard for Clash, offering a modern interface for configuration and monitoring. ShellCrash, on the other hand, is a more comprehensive network management tool that includes Clash functionality along with additional features for system-wide network control. While yacd excels in its focused approach and clean design, ShellCrash provides a broader range of networking capabilities and system integration.