Pros of vue-element-admin

• More mature and widely adopted, with a larger community and ecosystem
• Extensive documentation and examples available
• Includes a rich set of pre-built components and features out of the box

Cons of vue-element-admin

• Based on Vue 2, which may be considered outdated for new projects
• Heavier and potentially more complex for simpler applications
• Less flexibility in terms of customization and modern development practices

Code Comparison

vue-element-admin:

import Vue from 'vue'
import Element from 'element-ui'
import 'element-ui/lib/theme-chalk/index.css'

Vue.use(Element, { size: 'small', zIndex: 3000 })

soybean-admin:

import { createApp } from 'vue'
import ElementPlus from 'element-plus'
import 'element-plus/dist/index.css'

const app = createApp(App)
app.use(ElementPlus)

The code snippets show that vue-element-admin uses Vue 2 syntax and Element UI, while soybean-admin employs Vue 3 composition API and Element Plus. This reflects the more modern approach of soybean-admin, which may offer better performance and maintainability for new projects.

soybean-admin provides a fresh, TypeScript-based alternative with Vue 3 support, making it more suitable for developers looking to leverage the latest Vue features and best practices. However, vue-element-admin's maturity and extensive resources make it a solid choice for those prioritizing stability and comprehensive documentation.

Pros of vue-admin-better

• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Includes built-in support for multiple languages

Cons of vue-admin-better

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex architecture
• Heavier bundle size, which may impact performance
• Less flexibility for customization compared to soybean-admin

Code Comparison

vue-admin-better:

<template>
  <div class="app-container">
    <el-form ref="form" :model="form" label-width="120px">
      <el-form-item label="Activity name">
        <el-input v-model="form.name"></el-input>
      </el-form-item>
    </el-form>
  </div>
</template>

soybean-admin:

<template>
  <n-form
    :model="model"
    label-placement="left"
    label-width="auto"
    require-mark-placement="right-hanging"
    :style="{
      maxWidth: '640px'
    }"
  >
    <n-form-item label="Input">
      <n-input v-model:value="model.inputValue" placeholder="Input" />
    </n-form-item>
  </n-form>
</template>

The code comparison shows that vue-admin-better uses Element UI components, while soybean-admin uses Naive UI components. Both frameworks provide similar form functionality, but with different styling and component naming conventions.

Pros of vue-vben-admin

• More comprehensive documentation, including detailed guides and API references
• Larger community and more frequent updates, potentially leading to better long-term support
• Includes more pre-built components and layouts out of the box

Cons of vue-vben-admin

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set and configuration options
• Potentially heavier and more complex, which may impact performance for smaller projects
• Less flexibility for customization in some areas due to its opinionated structure

Code Comparison

vue-vben-admin:

import { defineComponent } from 'vue';
import { BasicForm, useForm } from '/@/components/Form';
import { formSchema } from './data';

export default defineComponent({
  setup() {
    const [registerForm, { setFieldsValue }] = useForm({
      schemas: formSchema,
    });
    // ...
  },
});

soybean-admin:

import { defineComponent } from 'vue';
import { NForm, NFormItem, NInput } from 'naive-ui';

export default defineComponent({
  setup() {
    const formRef = ref(null);
    const formModel = reactive({
      // form fields
    });
    // ...
  },
});

The code comparison shows that vue-vben-admin uses a more abstracted form setup with schemas, while soybean-admin employs a more direct approach using Naive UI components.

Pros of vue-pure-admin

• More comprehensive documentation, including detailed setup instructions and component usage guides
• Larger community and more frequent updates, potentially leading to better long-term support
• Includes a wider range of pre-built components and layouts out of the box

Cons of vue-pure-admin

• Steeper learning curve due to more complex architecture and additional features
• Potentially higher resource usage and slower performance in some scenarios
• Less flexibility for customization in certain areas compared to soybean-admin

Code Comparison

soybean-admin:

<template>
  <n-config-provider :theme="theme">
    <n-loading-bar-provider>
      <n-dialog-provider>
        <n-notification-provider>
          <n-message-provider>
            <AppProvider>
              <RouterView />
            </AppProvider>
          </n-message-provider>
        </n-notification-provider>
      </n-dialog-provider>
    </n-loading-bar-provider>
  </n-config-provider>
</template>

vue-pure-admin:

<template>
  <el-config-provider :locale="locale">
    <router-view v-slot="{ Component, route }">
      <transition :name="setTransitionName(route)" mode="out-in" appear>
        <keep-alive v-if="keepAliveComponents" :include="keepAliveComponents">
          <component :is="Component" :key="route.fullPath" />
        </keep-alive>
        <component v-else :is="Component" :key="route.fullPath" />
      </transition>
    </router-view>
  </el-config-provider>
</template>

Pros of naive-ui-admin

• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Larger community and more frequent updates
• Better integration with Naive UI components

Cons of naive-ui-admin

• Less customizable theming options
• Fewer built-in layouts and page templates
• Steeper learning curve for beginners

Code Comparison

naive-ui-admin:

<template>
  <n-config-provider :theme="theme">
    <n-layout>
      <n-layout-header>Header</n-layout-header>
      <n-layout-content>Content</n-layout-content>
    </n-layout>
  </n-config-provider>
</template>

soybean-admin:

<template>
  <app-provider>
    <router-view />
  </app-provider>
</template>

The code comparison shows that naive-ui-admin uses Naive UI components directly in the template, while soybean-admin employs a more abstracted approach with custom components like app-provider.

naive-ui-admin offers a more straightforward implementation of Naive UI components, which can be beneficial for developers familiar with the library. On the other hand, soybean-admin's abstraction layer may provide more flexibility and easier customization for advanced users.

Both projects aim to simplify admin panel development, but they cater to different developer preferences and skill levels. naive-ui-admin is more suitable for those who want to leverage Naive UI's capabilities directly, while soybean-admin offers a more opinionated and potentially more customizable solution.

Pros of soybean-admin

• Identical functionality and features as both repositories are the same project
• No distinct advantages over the other repository

Cons of soybean-admin

• No specific disadvantages compared to the other repository
• Both repositories are essentially the same, so there are no unique drawbacks

Code Comparison

As both repositories are identical, there is no meaningful code comparison to be made. The codebase, structure, and functionality are the same in both cases. Here's a sample of the main entry point from both repositories:

import { createApp } from 'vue';
import App from './App.vue';
import { setupRouter } from './router';
import { setupStore } from './store';
import { setupAssets } from './plugins';

async function setupApp() {
  // Import assets: css, js, etc.
  setupAssets();

  // Create vue app
  const app = createApp(App);

  // Configure store
  setupStore(app);

  // Configure router
  await setupRouter(app);

  // Mount the app
  app.mount('#app');
}

setupApp();

This code is identical in both repositories, as they are the same project. The comparison reveals no differences in implementation or structure.