Pros of Xray-core

• Implements XTLS protocol for improved performance and reduced overhead
• Offers more advanced routing capabilities and fine-grained control
• Includes additional features like VLESS protocol and reality protocol

Cons of Xray-core

• May have a steeper learning curve due to additional features and configurations
• Potentially less stable than v2ray-core as it's a newer fork with more frequent updates

Code Comparison

v2ray-core:

type ServerConfig struct {
    Address *Address  `json:"address"`
    Port    uint16    `json:"port"`
    Network *Network  `json:"network"`
}

Xray-core:

type ServerConfig struct {
    Address *Address  `json:"address"`
    Port    uint16    `json:"port"`
    Network *Network  `json:"network"`
    Flow    string    `json:"flow"`
}

The main difference in the code example is the addition of the Flow field in Xray-core's ServerConfig struct, which is used for XTLS flow control settings.

Both projects are based on the original v2ray-core, with Xray-core being a fork that introduces new features and optimizations. While Xray-core offers enhanced performance and additional protocols, v2ray-core may be preferred for its stability and simpler configuration.

Pros of Trojan

• Simpler and more lightweight design, focusing on a single protocol
• Potentially faster performance due to its streamlined approach
• Easier to set up and configure for basic use cases

Cons of Trojan

• Less versatile compared to V2Ray's multi-protocol support
• Fewer advanced features and customization options
• Smaller community and ecosystem

Code Comparison

Trojan (main.cpp):

int main(int argc, const char *argv[]) {
    try {
        Config config;
        Service service(config);
        return service.run();
    } catch (const std::exception &e) {
        Log::log_with_date_time(std::string("fatal: ") + e.what(), Log::FATAL);
        return 1;
    }
}

V2Ray (main.go):

func main() {
    os.Setenv("v2ray.location.asset", env.GetAssetLocation())
    core.PrintVersion()
    configFiles := getConfigFilePath()
    server, err := startV2Ray(configFiles)
    if err != nil {
        fmt.Println("Failed to start", err)
        os.Exit(-1)
    }
    defer server.Close()
    // ...
}

The code comparison shows that Trojan has a more compact main function, reflecting its simpler design, while V2Ray's main function includes more setup steps and error handling, indicating its more complex and feature-rich nature.

Pros of trojan-go

• Simpler and more lightweight, focusing specifically on the Trojan protocol
• Potentially faster performance due to its specialized nature
• Easier to configure and deploy for users primarily interested in Trojan

Cons of trojan-go

• Less versatile compared to v2ray-core's multi-protocol support
• Smaller community and potentially slower development cycle
• May lack some advanced features available in v2ray-core

Code Comparison

v2ray-core (Go):

type Server struct {
    config        *Config
    serverWorkers []*ServerWorker
}

func (s *Server) Start() error {
    // Server initialization logic
}

trojan-go (Go):

type Server struct {
    config *Config
    auth   auth.Authenticator
}

func (s *Server) Run() error {
    // Server run logic
}

Both projects use Go and have similar structure for their server implementations. However, v2ray-core's codebase is more extensive due to its multi-protocol support, while trojan-go focuses specifically on the Trojan protocol, resulting in a more streamlined codebase.

v2ray-core offers a more comprehensive solution for various proxy needs, while trojan-go provides a specialized implementation of the Trojan protocol. The choice between them depends on the user's specific requirements and preferences for simplicity versus versatility.

Pros of shadowsocks-rust

• Written in Rust, offering better memory safety and performance
• Lightweight and focused solely on the Shadowsocks protocol
• Easier to set up and configure for basic use cases

Cons of shadowsocks-rust

• Limited protocol support compared to v2ray-core
• Fewer advanced features and customization options
• Smaller community and ecosystem

Code Comparison

v2ray-core (Go):

type User struct {
    Level uint32
    Email string
}

type Account struct {
    Id      string
    AlterId uint32
}

shadowsocks-rust (Rust):

pub struct ServerConfig {
    pub addr: ServerAddr,
    pub password: String,
    pub method: CipherKind,
    pub timeout: Option<Duration>,
}

The code snippets show differences in language syntax and structure. v2ray-core's code demonstrates its multi-protocol support with separate User and Account structs, while shadowsocks-rust's ServerConfig struct focuses on the essential Shadowsocks protocol configuration.

Both projects aim to provide secure and efficient proxy solutions, but v2ray-core offers more versatility and features at the cost of complexity, while shadowsocks-rust provides a streamlined, performance-focused implementation of the Shadowsocks protocol.

Pros of naiveproxy

• Simpler setup and configuration process
• Better performance in high-latency environments
• More resistant to detection and blocking

Cons of naiveproxy

• Less flexible with fewer protocol options
• Smaller community and ecosystem compared to v2ray-core
• Limited documentation and user guides

Code Comparison

v2ray-core:

type User struct {
    Level uint32
    Email string
}

type Account struct {
    Id      string
    AlterId uint32
}

naiveproxy:

struct ProxyConfig {
  std::string listen;
  std::string proxy;
  std::string padding;
  std::string host;
};

The code snippets show different approaches to configuration. v2ray-core uses separate structs for user and account information, while naiveproxy combines configuration options into a single struct. This reflects the simpler setup of naiveproxy compared to the more complex and flexible v2ray-core.

Both projects aim to provide secure and efficient proxy solutions, but they cater to different use cases and preferences. v2ray-core offers more customization options and protocols, while naiveproxy focuses on simplicity and performance in challenging network conditions.