Pros of MapStruct

• Compile-time code generation, resulting in faster execution and earlier error detection
• Type-safe mapping with minimal runtime overhead
• Extensive IDE support and integration

Cons of MapStruct

• Steeper learning curve due to annotation-based configuration
• Less flexibility for complex mappings compared to Orika's runtime approach

Code Comparison

MapStruct:

@Mapper
public interface CarMapper {
    @Mapping(source = "numberOfSeats", target = "seatCount")
    CarDto carToCarDto(Car car);
}

Orika:

mapperFactory.classMap(Car.class, CarDto.class)
    .field("numberOfSeats", "seatCount")
    .byDefault()
    .register();

Key Differences

• MapStruct uses compile-time code generation, while Orika performs runtime mapping
• MapStruct relies on annotations for configuration, Orika uses a fluent API
• MapStruct offers better performance, while Orika provides more flexibility for complex mappings

Both libraries are popular choices for Java object mapping, with MapStruct generally preferred for simpler, performance-critical mappings, and Orika favored for more complex, dynamic mapping scenarios.

Pros of ModelMapper

• More flexible and customizable mapping configurations
• Better support for complex object graphs and nested mappings
• Easier to use with minimal configuration for simple use cases

Cons of ModelMapper

• Generally slower performance compared to Orika
• Steeper learning curve for advanced mapping scenarios
• Less type-safe mapping operations

Code Comparison

ModelMapper:

ModelMapper modelMapper = new ModelMapper();
DestinationType dest = modelMapper.map(source, DestinationType.class);

Orika:

MapperFactory mapperFactory = new DefaultMapperFactory.Builder().build();
MapperFacade mapper = mapperFactory.getMapperFacade();
DestinationType dest = mapper.map(source, DestinationType.class);

Key Differences

• ModelMapper uses reflection-based mapping, while Orika generates bytecode for better performance
• Orika requires more explicit configuration for complex mappings, but offers better type safety
• ModelMapper provides more out-of-the-box conventions and intelligent mapping strategies

Use Cases

• ModelMapper: Ideal for projects with complex object structures and frequent mapping changes
• Orika: Better suited for high-performance applications with stable mapping requirements

Both libraries offer powerful object mapping capabilities, but the choice between them depends on specific project needs, performance requirements, and developer preferences.

Pros of Dozer

• More extensive documentation and community support
• Supports XML-based mapping configuration
• Better integration with Spring Framework

Cons of Dozer

• Generally slower performance compared to Orika
• More verbose configuration, especially for complex mappings
• Heavier memory footprint

Code Comparison

Dozer mapping configuration:

DozerBeanMapper mapper = new DozerBeanMapper();
mapper.addMapping(new BeanMappingBuilder() {
    @Override
    protected void configure() {
        mapping(Source.class, Destination.class)
            .fields("sourceField", "destField");
    }
});

Orika mapping configuration:

MapperFactory mapperFactory = new DefaultMapperFactory.Builder().build();
mapperFactory.classMap(Source.class, Destination.class)
    .field("sourceField", "destField")
    .register();

Both Dozer and Orika are popular Java bean mapping frameworks, but they have distinct differences in performance, configuration, and features. Orika generally offers better performance and a more streamlined API, while Dozer provides more extensive documentation and better Spring integration. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements and preferences.