Pros of Avalonia

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

Cons of Avalonia

• Steeper learning curve for developers new to XAML-based frameworks
• Smaller ecosystem and fewer third-party controls compared to WPF

Code Comparison

MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit (XAML):

<Button Style="{StaticResource MaterialDesignRaisedButton}"
        Content="ACCEPT" />

Avalonia (XAML):

<Button Classes="accent"
        Content="ACCEPT" />

Both frameworks use XAML for UI design, but Avalonia's syntax is more streamlined and platform-agnostic. MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit focuses on providing Material Design-styled controls for WPF applications, while Avalonia offers a complete cross-platform UI framework with its own styling system.

Avalonia's main advantage is its cross-platform capabilities, allowing developers to create applications that run on multiple operating systems and devices. However, MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit excels in providing a comprehensive set of Material Design controls and themes specifically for WPF applications, which may be preferable for Windows-focused projects.

Developers choosing between these frameworks should consider their target platforms, design requirements, and existing expertise in XAML-based technologies.

Pros of MahApps.Metro

• More established and mature project with a longer history
• Wider range of controls and features out-of-the-box
• Better integration with Windows-specific UI elements

Cons of MahApps.Metro

• Less adherence to Material Design principles
• Slower adoption of modern design trends
• More complex theming system compared to MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit

Code Comparison

MahApps.Metro:

<Controls:MetroWindow x:Class="MainWindow"
    xmlns:Controls="http://metro.mahapps.com/winfx/xaml/controls"
    Title="MahApps.Metro Window" Height="600" Width="800">
    <Controls:MetroWindow.RightWindowCommands>
        <Controls:WindowCommands>
            <Button Content="Settings" />
        </Controls:WindowCommands>
    </Controls:MetroWindow.RightWindowCommands>
</Controls:MetroWindow>

MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit:

<Window x:Class="MainWindow"
    xmlns:materialDesign="http://materialdesigninxaml.net/winfx/xaml/themes"
    Title="Material Design Window" Height="600" Width="800">
    <materialDesign:Card Padding="32" Margin="16">
        <TextBlock Style="{DynamicResource MaterialDesignHeadline6TextBlock}">
            Hello, Material Design!
        </TextBlock>
    </materialDesign:Card>
</Window>

Pros of Dragablz

• Focused on providing advanced tab control functionality, including docking and layout features
• Lightweight and specialized, making it easier to integrate for specific tab-related needs
• Offers unique features like tab tearing and docking that are not present in MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit

Cons of Dragablz

• Limited scope compared to MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit, which offers a comprehensive Material Design implementation
• Less active development and community support
• Requires more custom styling to achieve a cohesive Material Design look

Code Comparison

Dragablz tab control implementation:

<dragablz:TabablzControl>
    <dragablz:TabablzControl.InterTabController>
        <dragablz:InterTabController />
    </dragablz:TabablzControl.InterTabController>
    <TabItem Header="Tab No. 1" IsSelected="True">
        <TextBlock>Hello World</TextBlock>
    </TabItem>
</dragablz:TabablzControl>

MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit tab control implementation:

<materialDesign:Card>
    <TabControl Style="{StaticResource MaterialDesignTabControl}">
        <TabItem Header="Tab No. 1">
            <TextBlock>Hello World</TextBlock>
        </TabItem>
    </TabControl>
</materialDesign:Card>

Both libraries offer unique features and cater to different needs. Dragablz excels in advanced tab control functionality, while MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit provides a comprehensive Material Design implementation for WPF applications.

Pros of MUI

• Lightweight and minimalistic design, focusing on core Material Design principles
• Easier to customize and extend due to its simpler architecture
• Better performance for smaller applications with fewer components

Cons of MUI

• Less comprehensive component library compared to MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit
• Fewer built-in themes and color options
• Less active community and fewer updates

Code Comparison

MUI:

<mui:ModernWindow x:Class="MainWindow"
    xmlns:mui="http://firstfloorsoftware.com/ModernUI"
    Title="MUI Example" Style="{StaticResource BlankWindow}">
    <mui:ModernFrame Source="/Pages/Home.xaml" />
</mui:ModernWindow>

MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit:

<Window x:Class="MainWindow"
    xmlns:materialDesign="http://materialdesigninxaml.net/winfx/xaml/themes"
    TextElement.Foreground="{DynamicResource MaterialDesignBody}"
    Background="{DynamicResource MaterialDesignPaper}">
    <materialDesign:Card Padding="32" Margin="16">
        <TextBlock Style="{DynamicResource MaterialDesignHeadline6TextBlock}">
            Hello, Material Design!
        </TextBlock>
    </materialDesign:Card>
</Window>

Both libraries offer Material Design-inspired components for WPF applications, but MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit provides a more extensive set of controls and styling options. MUI is better suited for simpler projects or those requiring a lighter footprint, while MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit is ideal for larger applications needing a wide range of pre-built components and theming capabilities.

Pros of MaterialSkin

• Simpler implementation for basic Material Design elements
• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing WinForms projects
• Faster rendering performance for simpler UI components

Cons of MaterialSkin

• Limited to Windows Forms applications
• Fewer customization options compared to MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit
• Less frequent updates and smaller community support

Code Comparison

MaterialSkin:

MaterialSkinManager.Instance.AddFormToManage(this);
MaterialSkinManager.Instance.Theme = MaterialSkinManager.Themes.LIGHT;
MaterialSkinManager.Instance.ColorScheme = new ColorScheme(Primary.Blue400, Primary.Blue500, Primary.Blue500, Accent.LightBlue200, TextShade.WHITE);

MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit:

<ResourceDictionary Source="pack://application:,,,/MaterialDesignThemes.Wpf;component/Themes/MaterialDesignTheme.Light.xaml" />
<ResourceDictionary Source="pack://application:,,,/MaterialDesignThemes.Wpf;component/Themes/MaterialDesignTheme.Defaults.xaml" />
<ResourceDictionary Source="pack://application:,,,/MaterialDesignColors;component/Themes/Recommended/Primary/MaterialDesignColor.DeepPurple.xaml" />
<ResourceDictionary Source="pack://application:,,,/MaterialDesignColors;component/Themes/Recommended/Accent/MaterialDesignColor.Lime.xaml" />

MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit offers more extensive theming options and is designed for WPF applications, while MaterialSkin provides a simpler approach for Windows Forms projects. The code comparison shows the different setup processes, with MaterialSkin using C# for configuration and MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit utilizing XAML resources.

Pros of ModernWpf

• Focuses on providing a modern Windows 10/11 look and feel, closely mimicking native UI
• Lighter weight and potentially easier to integrate into existing projects
• Includes built-in support for dark mode and high contrast themes

Cons of ModernWpf

• Less extensive component library compared to MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit
• May not be as suitable for projects requiring a more customized or branded appearance
• Less active community and fewer contributors

Code Comparison

MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit:

<Button Style="{StaticResource MaterialDesignRaisedButton}"
        Content="ACCEPT" />

ModernWpf:

<Button Style="{StaticResource AccentButtonStyle}"
        Content="Accept" />

Both libraries offer custom styles for common WPF controls, but MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit tends to use more descriptive style names, while ModernWpf often aligns closer to default WPF naming conventions with a focus on Windows 10/11 styling.

MaterialDesignInXamlToolkit provides a wider range of pre-built components and more extensive customization options, making it suitable for projects requiring a distinct Material Design look. ModernWpf, on the other hand, excels at providing a native Windows 10/11 appearance with minimal setup, making it ideal for applications that aim to blend seamlessly with the operating system's UI.