Pros of mihomo

• More actively maintained with frequent updates
• Better performance and resource efficiency
• Supports a wider range of protocols and features

Cons of mihomo

• Less user-friendly interface for configuration
• Steeper learning curve for new users
• Limited documentation compared to OpenClash

Code Comparison

OpenClash configuration example:

proxy-groups:
  - name: Proxy
    type: select
    proxies:
      - Auto
      - DIRECT
      - Server1
      - Server2

mihomo configuration example:

proxy-groups:
  - name: Proxy
    type: select
    use:
      - provider1
    proxies:
      - DIRECT
      - Server1
      - Server2

Both projects aim to provide a clash core for OpenWrt systems, but mihomo (formerly Clash.Meta) offers more advanced features and better performance. OpenClash provides a more user-friendly interface and extensive documentation, making it easier for beginners to set up and use. mihomo, on the other hand, caters to more advanced users who require additional customization options and improved performance. The code comparison shows slight differences in configuration syntax, with mihomo supporting proxy providers for more flexible management of proxy lists.

Pros of yacd

• Lightweight and focused dashboard for Clash
• Easy to integrate with existing Clash setups
• Cross-platform web-based interface

Cons of yacd

• Limited to dashboard functionality only
• Requires a separate Clash core to function
• Less comprehensive feature set for overall Clash management

Code comparison

yacd (React component):

function App() {
  return (
    <div className="app">
      <Header />
      <SideBar />
      <Main />
    </div>
  );
}

OpenClash (Lua configuration):

local function config()
    local uci = luci.model.uci.cursor()
    local clash = "openclash"
    local http_port = uci:get(clash, "config", "http_port")
    local dashboard_password = uci:get(clash, "config", "dashboard_password")
    -- Additional configuration logic
end

Summary

OpenClash is a comprehensive Clash implementation for OpenWrt, offering a full suite of features for managing Clash on routers. It includes its own dashboard, configuration management, and integration with OpenWrt.

yacd, on the other hand, is a standalone dashboard for Clash that can be used with various Clash implementations. It's more focused and lightweight but requires a separate Clash core to function.

The choice between the two depends on the specific use case: OpenClash for a full OpenWrt solution, or yacd for a flexible dashboard that can be used with different Clash setups.

Pros of ShellCrash

• Lightweight and efficient, suitable for low-resource devices
• Easy to install and configure through shell scripts
• Supports a wide range of platforms, including OpenWrt and various Linux distributions

Cons of ShellCrash

• Less feature-rich compared to OpenClash
• Smaller community and fewer updates
• Limited GUI options, primarily relies on command-line interface

Code Comparison

OpenClash configuration example:

port: 7890
socks-port: 7891
allow-lan: true
mode: Rule
log-level: info
external-controller: :9090

ShellCrash configuration example:

clash_port=7890
dns_port=1053
clash_ui_port=9090
run_mode="redir-host"

Key Differences

• OpenClash is more focused on OpenWrt devices, while ShellCrash has broader platform support
• OpenClash offers a more comprehensive GUI, making it easier for non-technical users
• ShellCrash is more lightweight and can be easily integrated into existing systems
• OpenClash has a larger user base and more frequent updates
• ShellCrash provides simpler configuration options, which can be beneficial for quick setups

Both projects aim to provide Clash-based proxy management, but they cater to different user needs and preferences. OpenClash is better suited for users who prefer a feature-rich, GUI-driven experience on OpenWrt devices, while ShellCrash is ideal for those who prioritize simplicity and cross-platform compatibility.