Pros of MahApps.Metro

• More mature and established project with a larger community and extensive documentation
• Offers a wider range of controls and features, including flyouts, dialogs, and custom window styles
• Provides better support for older versions of .NET Framework

Cons of MahApps.Metro

• Heavier and more complex, which may lead to longer load times and increased memory usage
• Less focused on modern Windows UI design principles, potentially resulting in a less native look and feel

Code Comparison

MahApps.Metro:

<Controls:MetroWindow x:Class="MainWindow"
                      xmlns:Controls="http://metro.mahapps.com/winfx/xaml/controls"
                      Title="MahApps.Metro Example">
    <Controls:MetroWindow.RightWindowCommands>
        <Controls:WindowCommands>
            <Button Content="Settings" />
        </Controls:WindowCommands>
    </Controls:MetroWindow.RightWindowCommands>
</Controls:MetroWindow>

WPFUI:

<ui:UiWindow x:Class="MainWindow"
             xmlns:ui="http://schemas.lepo.co/wpfui/2022/xaml"
             Title="WPFUI Example">
    <ui:TitleBar>
        <ui:Button Icon="Settings24" Content="Settings" />
    </ui:TitleBar>
</ui:UiWindow>

Pros of Avalonia

• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android, WebAssembly)
• More mature and established project with a larger community
• Extensive documentation and learning resources

Cons of Avalonia

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to XAML-based frameworks
• Potentially slower performance compared to native WPF applications

Code Comparison

Avalonia:

<Window xmlns="https://github.com/avaloniaui"
        xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"
        Title="Avalonia Example">
    <Button Content="Click me!" />
</Window>

WPFUI:

<ui:UiWindow
    xmlns:ui="http://schemas.lepo.co/wpfui/2022/xaml"
    Title="WPFUI Example">
    <ui:Button Content="Click me!" />
</ui:UiWindow>

Both frameworks use XAML for UI design, but Avalonia's syntax is more similar to traditional WPF, while WPFUI introduces custom controls and namespaces for a modern Windows 11-style UI.

Avalonia offers cross-platform development capabilities, making it suitable for projects targeting multiple operating systems. WPFUI, on the other hand, focuses on providing a native Windows 11 look and feel for WPF applications, making it ideal for Windows-specific projects that require a modern UI.

Pros of MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit

• More comprehensive set of UI controls and components
• Longer development history and larger community support
• Extensive documentation and examples available

Cons of MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• May require more setup and configuration for basic projects
• Potentially heavier resource usage in some scenarios

Code Comparison

MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit:

<materialDesign:Card Padding="32" Margin="16">
    <TextBlock Style="{DynamicResource MaterialDesignHeadline6TextBlock}">
        Hello World
    </TextBlock>
</materialDesign:Card>

wpfui:

<ui:Card Margin="12">
    <TextBlock FontSize="24" FontWeight="Medium">
        Hello World
    </TextBlock>
</ui:Card>

Both libraries offer modern UI components, but MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit provides more specialized styles and controls out of the box. wpfui focuses on a clean, Windows 11-inspired design with simpler implementation. The code comparison shows that while both achieve similar results, MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit uses more specific styling attributes, potentially offering greater customization at the cost of added complexity.

Pros of ControlzEx

• More mature and established project with a longer history
• Broader focus on WPF controls and behaviors, not limited to UI styling
• Extensive documentation and examples available

Cons of ControlzEx

• Less modern and fluent design-oriented compared to WPFUI
• May require more manual styling and customization for a cohesive look
• Smaller community and fewer recent updates

Code Comparison

ControlzEx:

<controls:WindowChrome.WindowChrome>
    <controls:WindowChrome ResizeBorderThickness="6"
                           CaptionHeight="32"
                           CornerRadius="0"
                           GlassFrameThickness="0" />
</controls:WindowChrome.WindowChrome>

WPFUI:

<ui:Window
    ExtendsContentIntoTitleBar="True"
    WindowBackdropType="Mica"
    WindowCornerPreference="Round">
    <!-- Window content -->
</ui:Window>

The code snippets demonstrate the difference in approach between the two libraries. ControlzEx provides more granular control over window chrome properties, while WPFUI offers a more streamlined, modern Windows 11-style appearance with fewer configuration options.

WPFUI is better suited for developers looking to quickly implement a modern, Fluent Design-inspired interface, while ControlzEx may be preferred for those requiring more fine-grained control over WPF behaviors and custom styling.

Pros of WPF Toolkit

• More comprehensive set of controls and features
• Longer history and established reputation in the WPF community
• Extensive documentation and support resources

Cons of WPF Toolkit

• Larger footprint and potential performance overhead
• Some components require a commercial license
• Less focus on modern UI design principles

Code Comparison

WPF Toolkit:

<xctk:ColorPicker Name="MyColorPicker" 
                  SelectedColor="Red"
                  DisplayColorAndName="True"
                  AvailableColorsSortingMode="HueSaturationBrightness" />

WPFUI:

<ui:ColorPicker Name="MyColorPicker"
                SelectedColor="Red"
                ShowAccent="True"
                IsAlphaEnabled="True" />

Summary

WPF Toolkit offers a more extensive set of controls and features, backed by a longer history in the WPF ecosystem. It provides comprehensive documentation and support but comes with a larger footprint and potential licensing costs for some components. WPFUI, on the other hand, focuses on modern UI design principles and offers a more lightweight solution, albeit with a smaller set of controls. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, desired UI aesthetics, and licensing considerations.

Pros of MUI

• More mature and established project with a longer history
• Larger community and more extensive documentation
• Broader range of UI components and controls

Cons of MUI

• Less focused on modern Windows UI design principles
• May require more customization to achieve a native Windows look and feel
• Potentially steeper learning curve for developers new to XAML-based frameworks

Code Comparison

WPFUI:

<ui:Window
    xmlns:ui="http://schemas.lepo.co/wpfui/2022/xaml">
    <ui:Button
        Content="Click me!"
        Appearance="Primary" />
</ui:Window>

MUI:

<mui:ModernWindow
    xmlns:mui="http://firstfloorsoftware.com/ModernUI">
    <mui:ModernButton
        Content="Click me!"
        Style="{StaticResource AccentedSquareButtonStyle}" />
</mui:ModernWindow>

Both libraries offer custom controls and styles to enhance the UI experience in WPF applications. WPFUI focuses on providing a more Windows 11-like appearance, while MUI offers a broader set of customizable UI elements. The choice between the two depends on the specific project requirements, desired aesthetics, and developer preferences.