Documentation: Comparing to ImageMaxURL

[DonaldTsang]

With reference to https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/36662-image-max-url and https://github.com/qsniyg/maxurl,
How is HandyImages different than ImageMaxURL (with the exception of more hotkeys)?
What are the differences in image support and loading speed?

[Owyn]

These scripts are nothing alike,

that one replaces small images with bigger versions, but leaves all ads, "continue to image" pages and everything

this one when you open the image page - leaves just image on the page (biggest available version ofc), gets rid of all ads and autoskips all "continue to image"

example: https://fastpic.ru/view/114/2021/0104/_8e1e01ff6e55c46da31b3165937cd180.jpg.html

original image page:

maxURL page:

HandyImage page:

as for loading speed - can't compare, since I have no idea when and how even loading starts there and how to notice it but here it happens as soon as it can

[DonaldTsang]

So in short, one is more a download aid, and the other shows the bigger image in its entirety.
What about site coverage?

[qsniyg]

Just for completeness, I'll add my own answer as I'm the developer of Image Max URL (I'll refer to it as IMU). Please note that I don't know much about HandyImage, so some of my answers may be incorrect (feel free to correct me). And obviously there may be a bit of bias, though I've tried to keep it out of this answer.

As Owyn says, the scripts don't share much in common, other than being in some way about finding larger images (but in different ways). However, I'm sure one could use either script to accomplish similar goals.

For loading speed, both load as soon as possible (@run-at document-start), but HandyImage likely loads faster due to its lighter size (~80KB vs ~2.2MB). That being said, this is only really relevant for IMU when redirecting images opened in their own tabs to larger versions (something that the addon version takes care of by redirecting in the background page instead). Initialization time is likely more relevant for HandyImage due to its functionality, but as Owyn notes, it's very fast. So in other words, initialization time isn't much of an issue for either extension, for different reasons :)

As for site coverage, again, both scripts are different. While IMU does support more sites (I don't know exactly how many HandyImage supports, but there are 755 matches for @match in the script, while IMU currently supports ~7600 hardcoded websites + generic rules), it doesn't offer the same functionality for the sites it supports. IMU's primary goal is to find larger images (with some user-experience functionality on top, such as an image popup feature), whereas HandyImage's primary goal (correct me if I'm wrong) is to provide a great distraction-free experience on image hosting websites (no ads, just the image, hotkeys, etc.). So if what you're interested in is image hosting websites, my guess is that the site coverage for both would be quite similar (and in fact, it might not be unlikely that IMU lacks a few that HandyImage supports). And of course, if one script supports a site that the other doesn't, I think either of us would be quite happy to add support for it if a ticket is opened.

My personal recommendation would be: If you like the functionality of both, use both! They shouldn't conflict with each other, and they both provide unique functionality :)