Pros of MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit

• Implements Google's Material Design principles, offering a modern and visually appealing UI
• Provides a rich set of controls and themes specifically designed for Material Design
• Active community with frequent updates and contributions

Cons of MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit

• Steeper learning curve for developers not familiar with Material Design concepts
• May require more effort to customize and deviate from the Material Design guidelines
• Limited compatibility with older Windows versions compared to WPF Toolkit

Code Comparison

MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit:

<materialDesign:Card Padding="32" Margin="16">
    <TextBlock Style="{DynamicResource MaterialDesignHeadline6TextBlock}">
        Hello World
    </TextBlock>
</materialDesign:Card>

WPF Toolkit:

<xctk:BusyIndicator IsBusy="True">
    <TextBlock Text="Loading..." />
</xctk:BusyIndicator>

Both libraries offer custom controls, but MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit focuses on Material Design-specific elements, while WPF Toolkit provides a broader range of general-purpose controls.

Pros of MahApps.Metro

• More modern and Metro-style UI components
• Extensive theming capabilities with built-in themes
• Active community and frequent updates

Cons of MahApps.Metro

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• May require more customization for non-Metro designs
• Limited to WPF applications only

Code Comparison

MahApps.Metro:

<Controls:MetroWindow x:Class="MainWindow"
    xmlns:Controls="http://metro.mahapps.com/winfx/xaml/controls"
    Title="Metro Window" Height="600" Width="800">
    <Controls:MetroAnimatedTabControl>
        <!-- Tab content here -->
    </Controls:MetroAnimatedTabControl>
</Controls:MetroWindow>

WPF Toolkit:

<Window x:Class="MainWindow"
    xmlns:xctk="http://schemas.xceed.com/wpf/xaml/toolkit"
    Title="WPF Toolkit Window" Height="600" Width="800">
    <xctk:ColorPicker SelectedColor="Red" />
</Window>

MahApps.Metro focuses on providing a complete Metro-style UI framework, while WPF Toolkit offers a broader range of individual controls. MahApps.Metro is ideal for modern, Windows-style applications, whereas WPF Toolkit provides more flexibility for various UI designs. The code examples showcase the different approaches: MahApps.Metro replaces the standard Window with a MetroWindow, while WPF Toolkit adds individual controls to a standard Window.

Pros of Avalonia

• Cross-platform support for Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android, and WebAssembly
• Modern, flexible architecture with XAML-based UI design
• Active development and growing community support

Cons of Avalonia

• Smaller ecosystem and fewer third-party controls compared to WPF
• Learning curve for developers transitioning from WPF
• Some advanced WPF features may not be available or implemented differently

Code Comparison

WPFToolkit:

<xctk:ColorPicker Name="MyColorPicker" 
                  SelectedColor="Red"
                  DisplayColorAndName="True"
                  AvailableColorsSortingMode="HueSaturationBrightness" />

Avalonia:

<ColorPicker Name="MyColorPicker"
             Color="Red"
             IsAlphaVisible="True"
             IsColorSpectrumVisible="True"
             IsColorComponentsVisible="True" />

While both libraries offer color picker controls, Avalonia's implementation is more streamlined and follows a more modern API design. WPFToolkit provides more customization options out of the box, but Avalonia's approach allows for easier extension and customization through styles and templates.

Avalonia's cross-platform nature makes it a compelling choice for developers targeting multiple operating systems, while WPFToolkit remains a solid option for Windows-specific applications with a rich set of pre-built controls.

Pros of HandyControl

• More comprehensive set of controls and features, including modern UI elements
• Active development with frequent updates and community contributions
• Better documentation and examples, making it easier for developers to implement

Cons of HandyControl

• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• May have a larger footprint and potentially impact application performance
• Less established in the industry compared to WPF Toolkit

Code Comparison

HandyControl:

<hc:Card Header="Card Title">
    <TextBlock Text="Card Content" />
</hc:Card>

WPF Toolkit:

<xctk:ChildWindow Header="Window Title">
    <TextBlock Text="Window Content" />
</xctk:ChildWindow>

Both libraries offer custom controls, but HandyControl tends to focus more on modern UI elements, while WPF Toolkit provides a wider range of traditional WPF controls and extensions. HandyControl's syntax is often more concise, but WPF Toolkit may be more familiar to developers accustomed to standard WPF practices.

Pros of Dragablz

• Focused on tab control and docking functionality, providing a more specialized solution
• Offers a modern, Material Design-inspired look out of the box
• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing projects

Cons of Dragablz

• Limited scope compared to WPF Toolkit's extensive control collection
• Less frequent updates and potentially less community support
• May require additional libraries or controls for a complete UI solution

Code Comparison

Dragablz tab control implementation:

<dragablz:TabablzControl>
    <TabItem Header="Tab 1">Content 1</TabItem>
    <TabItem Header="Tab 2">Content 2</TabItem>
</dragablz:TabablzControl>

WPF Toolkit tab control implementation:

<xctk:TabControl>
    <TabItem Header="Tab 1">Content 1</TabItem>
    <TabItem Header="Tab 2">Content 2</TabItem>
</xctk:TabControl>

Both libraries offer similar basic functionality for tab controls, but Dragablz provides more advanced features for tab manipulation and docking out of the box. WPF Toolkit, on the other hand, offers a wider range of controls and customization options beyond just tab controls.