AutoMapper vs FastMapper
Here is a tabular comparison between AutoMapper and FastMapper:
Feature/Aspect | AutoMapper | FastMapper |
---|---|---|
Library Type | Object-to-object mapping | Object-to-object mapping |
Performance | Slower, especially with large and complex mappings | Faster, optimized for performance |
Setup Complexity | Requires configuration for mapping profiles, but highly flexible | Minimal setup, focuses on simplicity |
Custom Mapping | Supports custom mapping rules and converters | Supports basic custom mapping with less flexibility |
Inheritance Support | Well-supported, can map between base and derived classes | Limited inheritance support |
Null Handling | Customizable null handling options | Basic null handling |
Mapping Collections | Supports mapping collections with built-in configuration | Supports collections, faster due to lightweight processing |
Flattening and Projection | Supports flattening complex objects and nested properties | Limited support for flattening |
Assemblies and Dependencies | Heavier, with multiple dependencies | Lightweight with fewer dependencies |
Community and Support | Large, active community with extensive documentation | Smaller community with less extensive documentation |
Dynamic Mapping | Supports mapping with runtime configuration | Primarily focuses on compile-time mappings |
Use Cases | Suitable for enterprise-level applications with complex mappings | Best for simple to moderately complex mappings where performance is key |
Ease of Use | Steeper learning curve due to extensive features | Easier to use with straightforward scenarios |
Maintained By | Community-driven, widely used in the .NET ecosystem | Less popular, niche usage |
This comparison should help you choose the right mapper based on your project's needs.
Comments