Pros of hls.js

• Specialized focus on HLS streaming, providing robust support for adaptive bitrate streaming
• Lightweight and efficient, with a smaller footprint compared to MediaElement
• Active development and frequent updates, ensuring compatibility with latest standards

Cons of hls.js

• Limited to HLS streaming, lacking support for other media formats
• Requires more setup and configuration for basic playback scenarios
• Less extensive plugin ecosystem compared to MediaElement

Code Comparison

MediaElement:

var player = new MediaElementPlayer('player1', {
    features: ['playpause', 'current', 'progress', 'duration', 'volume'],
    success: function(mediaElement, domObject) {
        // Player is ready
    }
});

hls.js:

var video = document.getElementById('video');
var hls = new Hls();
hls.loadSource('https://example.com/video.m3u8');
hls.attachMedia(video);
hls.on(Hls.Events.MANIFEST_PARSED, function() {
    video.play();
});

MediaElement provides a higher-level API with built-in UI components, while hls.js offers more granular control over HLS streaming but requires additional setup for UI elements. MediaElement supports various media formats out of the box, whereas hls.js specializes in HLS streaming with optimized performance for that specific use case.

Pros of Video.js

• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Better documentation and extensive API
• More customizable with a wide range of plugins

Cons of Video.js

• Larger file size, which may impact page load times
• Steeper learning curve for advanced customizations
• Some features require additional plugins, increasing complexity

Code Comparison

MediaElement:

var player = new MediaElementPlayer('player1', {
    features: ['playpause', 'current', 'progress', 'duration', 'volume'],
    success: function(mediaElement, domObject) {
        // do something
    }
});

Video.js:

var player = videojs('my-video', {
    controls: true,
    autoplay: false,
    preload: 'auto',
    fluid: true,
    plugins: {
        // plugin configurations
    }
});

Both libraries offer similar basic functionality for creating customizable video players. MediaElement focuses on simplicity and cross-browser compatibility, while Video.js provides more advanced features and customization options. The choice between the two depends on project requirements, desired features, and development preferences.

Pros of Clappr

• Modern architecture with a plugin-based system for easy extensibility
• Better support for adaptive streaming formats like HLS and DASH
• More active development and frequent updates

Cons of Clappr

• Steeper learning curve for customization compared to MediaElement
• Less extensive browser compatibility, especially for older versions
• Smaller community and fewer third-party plugins available

Code Comparison

MediaElement:

var player = new MediaElementPlayer('player1', {
    features: ['playpause', 'current', 'progress', 'duration', 'volume'],
    success: function(mediaElement, domObject) {
        // do something with the player
    }
});

Clappr:

var player = new Clappr.Player({
    source: 'https://your.video/here.mp4',
    parentId: '#player',
    plugins: [LevelSelector],
    height: 360,
    width: 640
});

Both libraries offer straightforward ways to initialize players, but Clappr's approach is more modern and concise. MediaElement provides more granular control over features, while Clappr focuses on a plugin-based architecture for extensibility. Clappr's code is generally more compact and easier to read, but MediaElement's structure may be more familiar to developers used to older JavaScript patterns.

Pros of Flowplayer

• More active development with frequent updates and releases
• Better support for modern streaming protocols like HLS and DASH
• Extensive API and plugin system for customization

Cons of Flowplayer

• Commercial product with paid licensing for some features
• Steeper learning curve for advanced customization
• Larger file size compared to MediaElement

Code Comparison

MediaElement basic setup:

var player = new MediaElementPlayer('player1', {
    features: ['playpause', 'current', 'progress', 'duration', 'volume']
});

Flowplayer basic setup:

flowplayer("#player", {
    clip: {
        sources: [
            { type: "application/x-mpegurl", src: "video.m3u8" }
        ]
    }
});

Both players offer simple setup options, but Flowplayer's configuration tends to be more concise and focused on modern streaming formats. MediaElement provides more granular control over player features in its initial setup.

While both libraries serve similar purposes, Flowplayer is generally more suited for professional streaming applications with its advanced features and protocols support. MediaElement, on the other hand, offers a simpler, open-source solution that may be sufficient for basic video playback needs.

Pros of JW Player

• More comprehensive feature set, including advanced streaming capabilities and analytics
• Better documentation and support, with extensive API references and tutorials
• Larger community and ecosystem, with more plugins and integrations available

Cons of JW Player

• Proprietary software with licensing costs for commercial use
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API and configuration options
• Heavier footprint, which may impact page load times and performance

Code Comparison

MediaElement.js:

var player = new MediaElementPlayer('player1', {
    features: ['playpause', 'current', 'progress', 'duration', 'volume'],
    success: function(mediaElement, domObject) {
        // Player is ready
    }
});

JW Player:

jwplayer("myElement").setup({
    file: "https://example.com/video.mp4",
    width: "100%",
    aspectratio: "16:9",
    autostart: false,
    analytics: {
        pid: "YOUR_ANALYTICS_ID"
    }
});

Both players offer easy setup, but JW Player provides more configuration options out of the box, including built-in analytics. MediaElement.js focuses on a simpler, more lightweight approach with modular features.

Pros of flv.js

• Specialized for FLV playback, offering better performance for this format
• Lightweight and focused, with a smaller footprint
• Supports live streaming of FLV content

Cons of flv.js

• Limited to FLV format, while MediaElement supports multiple formats
• Less extensive plugin ecosystem compared to MediaElement
• Fewer built-in UI controls and customization options

Code Comparison

flv.js:

if (flvjs.isSupported()) {
    var videoElement = document.getElementById('videoElement');
    var flvPlayer = flvjs.createPlayer({
        type: 'flv',
        url: 'http://example.com/flv/video.flv'
    });
    flvPlayer.attachMediaElement(videoElement);
    flvPlayer.load();
}

MediaElement:

var player = new MediaElementPlayer('player1', {
    success: function(mediaElement, originalNode, instance) {
        // do something with the player
    },
    features: ['playpause', 'current', 'progress', 'duration', 'volume']
});

The code examples show that flv.js is more focused on FLV playback, while MediaElement offers a more general-purpose player with built-in UI features. flv.js requires manual attachment to the video element, whereas MediaElement provides a higher-level abstraction for player creation and management.