A. The size of the SDK


Comparison environment description:
1. Only integrate social platforms such as Sina Weibo, wechat friends and QQ;
2. Do not include their own UI libraries, using the simplest and most basic interface to share;
3. Integrated into new Android engineering projects;
4. Comparison of integration methods;
Compared with the size of integrated wechat friends, QQ friends and wechat friends, the basic JAR package is actually relatively large, and the subsequent increase of the platform to be added will almost increase tens of K;
UMeng 
Jar package size, apK increased by 0.15m after compilation



It can be seen from the two tables above that the size of Umeng is relatively small compared with ShareSDK below, but overall it will increase too much.
MobShare
Jar package size, apK increased by 0.27m after compilation







Second, integration complexity
1. Tools are integrated with Studio
2. Integration mode
The first is the official website registration, the ShareSDK process instructions, ShareSDK is better;


Focus on the new integration of the two SDKS
A) Integrating JAR packages: ShareSDK has the advantage
Umeng needs to integrate JAR packages, as with the old integration approach, as well as resources;



ShareSDK does not need to integrate jar packages, just configure the required platform in the Gradle file


b)
Configuring the SDK and the third party: Key ShareSDK is more advantageous
Umeng here can be generated using the build tool
(1) After generation, it needs to be configured in the application, where the key of the third-party platform can be configured;



(2) AndroidManifest configuration code generation, generation can directly copy the configuration into the manifest file;







ShareSDK integration, just need to configure gradle as follows:
(1) Configure the call of MobSDK, and configure the platform and key
maven {
    url “http://mvn.mob.com/android”
}
dependencies {
.
    classpath ‘com.mob.sdk:MobSDK:+’
}





(2) ShareSDK does not need to be configured in manifest






C) Sharing code generation calls, UmENG has more advantages
Friendship can also be generated by code generator to call, input content friendship will automatically generate method, call;





ShareSDK, method call, as shown in the figure below, is also used similarly, just need to change the share object, and the corresponding method;





Summary of integration mode: From the integration mode, Umeng can use generators in code invocation and configuration, but ShareSDK does not need redundant configuration, ShareSDK has the advantage in integration mode




Other comparisons
Integration documentation: In terms of integration documentation, UmENG pursues to be too intelligent, but the explanation is not detailed enough. ShareSDK documentation is quite clear, and it also divides the description of different third-party commonly used platforms. ShareSDK has the advantage
Technical forums: ShareSDK has its own forum for this, with FAQ posts. There are hundreds of users of the problem, if you encounter a problem can first see if anyone asked, positioning problems quickly;
Customer service technology: ShareSDK provides full day technical support, not the problem can be directly solved by technology, I heard that we can chat to talk about feelings, this aspect of umeng is not good enough;
Update frequency: ShareSDK is basically updated once a month. SDK updates in a timely and fast manner. ShareSDK can make announcements and update the version in time if there is any change by the third party.





From the update frequency of the last half year, UmENG update is slow;


Fourth, summarize and compare








The main module Umeng does is not sharing. From the comparison items above, ShareSDK is indeed more advantageous, especially in technical forum and technical support reply. These are unique advantages.
Of course, the above is my personal opinion, welcome to leave a message to put forward the comparison items, we will supplement the comparison explanation together later;