Usually you compare a framework against a fixed point of reference, not really against each other. Here, two frameworks are only compared to each other using the following criteria.
They are scored by distributing the points value for each criteria under “scoring” between the two frameworks. For example,
for a – Framework 1 could get 7 points, Framework 2 would then get 11 points, adding up to 18 points. If there’s no difference between the two frameworks for a criteria, each splits the points. One criteria has an odd numbered total of points, to avoid an overtime situation.
For the last two criteria, the frameworks either get 1 point or 4 points, on whether they meet the criteria or not.
The points are added up at the end, and the winner advances.
View - templated preferred, DOM, XHTML, JSPs not as preferred score: 1 - 18 AJAX support - basic support on pages for widgets and dynamic updates of sections score: 1 - 7 Documentation - adequate reference, examples, tutorials score: 1 - 18 Backward compatibility - do new versions cause upgrade woes? score: 1 - 6 Support (maintenance of project, forums), somewhat biased toward usage score: 1 - 18 Database integration - full stack, ORM capabilities built in, or recommended 3rd party framework score: 1 - 12 Integration with rest of app stack - Spring or POJOs for biz logic score: 1 - 12 Internationalization (I18N) support - message bundles score; 1 - 6 How complex is it (more subjective than other criteria) how many "layers". how easy does it seem to be to learn? score: 1 - 18 Abstraction - how well does it "hide" the HTTP request/response model score: 1 - 6 Separation of concerns (MVC, MC-V, Page/C) score: 1 - 12 Can do file upload with framework native capability score: 1 or 4 Can plug in SSO score: 1 or 4