Choosing a .NET UI Framework: MAUI vs Avalonia vs Uno vs Blazor

.NET developers building a UI in 2026 have more good options than at any point since Windows Forms shipped in 2002, and that is exactly the problem: MAUI, Avalonia, Uno Platform, Blazor, WPF and WinUI 3 all use C#, all show up in the same dotnet new list, and all claim to be the productive choice. This guide compares them on what actually determines a multi-year bet: which platforms they reach, how they render, how mature and commercially backed they are, and what you can realistically share across targets. It ends with a decision table by scenario so you can choose once and move on.

What Are Your .NET UI Framework Options?#

Six frameworks cover almost every desktop, mobile and web UI scenario in .NET today:

.NET MAUI — single-project, cross-platform framework that renders real native controls on Android, iOS, macOS and Windows.
Avalonia UI — cross-platform, self-drawn (not native-control) XAML framework for Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android and WebAssembly.
Uno Platform — cross-platform framework built on the WinUI 3 API surface, reaching Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android and the browser from one codebase.
Blazor — web UI built with C# and Razor components, running server-side, client-side via WebAssembly, or embedded in a native shell as Blazor Hybrid.
WPF — the original XAML framework for rich, Windows-only desktop apps, open source and still actively maintained.
WinUI 3 — Microsoft's modern, Windows-only native UI layer, ships as part of the Windows App SDK and underpins MAUI's Windows head.

The rest of this guide compares them directly; each one also has its own in-depth guide linked from the sections below.

How Each Framework Renders Its UI#

Rendering approach is the single biggest differentiator, because it determines how "native" an app feels and how consistent it looks across platforms.

Native-control frameworks map their UI elements onto real platform widgets. MAUI's handlers turn a Button into a MaterialButton on Android, a UIButton on iOS, and a WinUI Button on Windows; WPF and WinUI 3 render Windows' own native visual tree. You get platform-correct text input, accessibility and look-and-feel for free, at the cost of small visual differences between platforms.
Self-drawn (Skia-based) frameworks paint every pixel themselves instead of delegating to platform widgets. Avalonia renders its entire control set through Skia, so a button looks identical on Windows, macOS and Linux — useful for a consistent brand, but you own accessibility and platform-idiom decisions that native controls give away for free.
Hybrid-rendering frameworks mix the two. Uno Platform exposes the WinUI 3 API surface everywhere; on Windows, macOS and Linux desktop it renders through Skia (on Windows inside a Win32 shell, on macOS inside an AppKit/Metal shell, on Linux via X11 or directly to a framebuffer for embedded targets), while mobile targets aim for native, pixel-accurate output.
Web-rendering frameworks don't paint pixels at all — they emit HTML and CSS. Blazor Server keeps your C# on the server and streams UI updates over a persistent connection; Blazor WebAssembly runs your C# compiled to WASM directly in the browser; Blazor Hybrid renders the same Razor components inside a native BlazorWebView control hosted by a MAUI, WPF or WinForms app, using the OS's own web view (WebView2 on Windows, WKWebView on Apple platforms).

Platform Support Compared#

Framework	Windows	macOS	Linux	iOS	Android	Web (browser)
.NET MAUI	Yes (WinUI 3)	Yes (Mac Catalyst)	No	Yes	Yes	No (Blazor Hybrid only, no browser target)
Avalonia UI	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (WebAssembly)
Uno Platform	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes (WebAssembly)
Blazor (Web App)	Yes (browser)	Yes (browser)	Yes (browser)	Yes (browser)	Yes (browser)	Yes
Blazor Hybrid	Yes	Yes	No (no official head)	Yes	Yes	N/A (embedded webview)
WPF	Yes	No	No	No	No	No
WinUI 3	Yes	No	No	No	No	No

"Web (browser)" for Blazor Web App means the app is reached through any modern browser on that OS, not a platform-native binary. WPF and WinUI 3 are included because they are frequently the other option teams are actually choosing between when they reach for a cross-platform framework in the first place.

Maturity, Licensing and Commercial Support#

All six are viable production choices in 2026, but they differ sharply in age, governance and how commercial support works:

Framework	License	Backing	Commercial support	Maturity
.NET MAUI	MIT	Microsoft (part of .NET)	Standard Microsoft/.NET support agreements	Mature since .NET 8; still the youngest of the native-control options
Avalonia UI	MIT (core)	AvaloniaUI OU, sponsored (for example, by Devolutions)	Avalonia XPF: a paid, per-app-per-platform license to run existing WPF apps on macOS and Linux	Mature; adopted by JetBrains, Unity, GitHub and Schneider Electric
Uno Platform	Apache 2.0 (core)	Uno Platform Inc.	Uno Platform Studio: a paid AI-assisted tooling and visual-design suite on top of the free core	Mature; the project reports around 10,000 GitHub stars, 130+ million NuGet downloads, and enterprise users including Toyota and Kahua
Blazor	MIT	Microsoft (part of ASP.NET Core)	Standard Microsoft/.NET support agreements	Mature since .NET 8's unified Blazor Web App render modes
WPF	MIT	Microsoft (part of .NET, open-sourced in 2018)	Standard Microsoft/.NET support agreements	The most mature XAML framework in .NET, with the deepest third-party control ecosystem (Telerik, DevExpress, Syncfusion and others)
WinUI 3	MIT	Microsoft (Windows App SDK)	Standard Microsoft/.NET support agreements	Mature but younger than WPF; its third-party control ecosystem is smaller but growing

The practical difference between "open source" and "commercially backed" matters here: Avalonia's and Uno's core frameworks are free and open source, but each vendor sells an additional commercial product (XPF, Studio) aimed at enterprises that want migration help or a paid support relationship on top of the free framework — a common and sustainable model, not a bait-and-switch. MAUI, Blazor, WPF and WinUI 3 are Microsoft products, so support follows your existing .NET or Visual Studio support agreement.

Tooling and Developer Experience#

Visual Studio has first-class designers for WPF, WinUI 3, MAUI and Blazor, plus XAML Hot Reload for the XAML frameworks and Blazor's own component Hot Reload.
Avalonia ships its own cross-platform previewer (usable from Visual Studio, Rider and VS Code) since it cannot rely on the Windows-only WPF/WinUI designers, and it has a mature Hot Reload story via the Avalonia extension.
Uno Platform integrates with Visual Studio, VS Code and JetBrains Rider, adds its own Hot Reload implementation that works across every target simultaneously (change a XAML file once, see it update on the Android emulator, the browser and the Windows build at the same time), and its paid Studio tier adds an in-app, runtime visual designer plus an AI development agent.
Blazor benefits from the entire ASP.NET Core toolchain: dotnet watch, browser dev tools for the WebAssembly and DOM-based pieces, and the same debugging experience web developers already know.
Rider and VS Code cover all six frameworks to varying degrees, with Visual Studio still offering the deepest designer support for the Microsoft-owned frameworks.

Every one of these frameworks except Blazor uses its own XAML dialect: a MAUI ContentPage, a WPF Window, a WinUI 3 Window, an Avalonia Window and an Uno Page are not source-compatible with each other, even though they look similar. That means the realistic sharing boundary for XAML-based frameworks is the view-model and service layer, not the views themselves:

Text

MyApp.sln
  MyApp.Core/          # models, services, view models — plain C#, no UI references
  MyApp.Maui/          # MAUI heads for Android, iOS, macOS, Windows
  MyApp.Wpf/            # Windows-only WPF client
  MyApp.Web/             # Blazor Web App

A CommunityToolkit.Mvvm view model with [ObservableProperty] and [RelayCommand] compiles unchanged whether it is bound from MAUI XAML, WPF XAML, WinUI 3 XAML, Avalonia XAML or an Uno Page — only the binding markup differs:

namespace MyApp.Core.ViewModels;

public partial class OrderListViewModel(IOrderService orders) : ObservableObject
{
    public ObservableCollection<Order> Orders { get; } = [];

    [ObservableProperty]
    public partial bool IsBusy { get; set; }

    [RelayCommand]
    private async Task LoadAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
    {
        IsBusy = true;
        try
        {
            Orders.Clear();
            foreach (var order in await orders.GetOpenOrdersAsync(cancellationToken))
            {
                Orders.Add(order);
            }
        }
        finally
        {
            IsBusy = false;
        }
    }
}

Blazor breaks this pattern in a useful way: because its components are plain C# and Razor markup rather than a platform-specific XAML dialect, the same .razor file can render on the server, run client-side via WebAssembly, and be hosted inside a BlazorWebView for Blazor Hybrid desktop or mobile apps. If your priority is one UI codebase reused as broadly as possible — not just one logic codebase — Blazor is the only option on this list that shares the view layer itself, not just the layer behind it.

Getting Started: A Look at Each Framework's Entry Point#

Seeing each framework's minimal startup code side by side makes the architectural differences concrete. An Avalonia desktop app configures a platform-detected app builder and starts a classic desktop lifetime:

using Avalonia;

var builder = AppBuilder.Configure<App>()
    .UsePlatformDetect()
    .LogToTrace();

builder.StartWithClassicDesktopLifetime(args);

A Blazor Web App wires up interactive render modes on the ASP.NET Core host, then maps components as endpoints:

var builder = WebApplication.CreateBuilder(args);

builder.Services.AddRazorComponents()
    .AddInteractiveServerComponents()
    .AddInteractiveWebAssemblyComponents();

var app = builder.Build();

app.MapRazorComponents<App>()
    .AddInteractiveServerRenderMode()
    .AddInteractiveWebAssemblyRenderMode();

app.Run();

Individual components then opt into a render mode, and can switch strategies without a rewrite:

Razor

@page "/orders"
@rendermode InteractiveAuto

<OrderGrid Orders="@orders" />

InteractiveAuto starts a component running over the server connection for a fast first paint, then switches to the downloaded WebAssembly runtime on subsequent visits — a trade-off unique to Blazor's web-rendering model that has no equivalent in the native-control or Skia-based frameworks.

Best Practices#

Decide on the platform list first, framework second. If Linux desktop or WebAssembly is a hard requirement, MAUI and WPF are eliminated before you compare anything else.
Put shared logic in a UI-free class library so a future framework change, or a second UI target, does not require rewriting services, validation or data access.
Prototype the one scenario you're least sure about — a complex data grid, a native camera integration, a WebAssembly cold-start time — before committing, rather than trusting a feature checklist alone.
Budget for the commercial tier if you need it. Avalonia XPF and Uno Platform Studio exist precisely because some teams need migration help or advanced tooling beyond the free core; factor that cost in early rather than discovering it mid-project.
Treat XAML dialects as non-portable. Plan for a code-behind and view-model sharing strategy, not a view-sharing one, unless you're specifically choosing Blazor.

Common Pitfalls#

Assuming "cross-platform" means "identical look." Native-control frameworks (MAUI) deliberately look different per platform; only Skia-based frameworks (Avalonia, Uno's desktop targets) guarantee pixel consistency.
Choosing Blazor WebAssembly for an app that needs a fast first paint without considering Blazor Server or InteractiveAuto, then being surprised by download size and cold-start latency.
Picking WinUI 3 for a product that turns out to need macOS or Linux later, when Avalonia or Uno would have avoided the rewrite entirely.
Underestimating the cost of a fully custom Skia-drawn UI on accessibility and platform conventions that native-control frameworks provide by default.
Ignoring the commercial control ecosystem. WPF's 20-year head start in third-party data grids and charting is a real advantage for data-heavy line-of-business apps, even though it is Windows-only.

Decision Guide by Scenario#

Scenario	Recommended framework	Why
iOS, Android, Windows and Mac app with a native look	.NET MAUI	Real native controls per platform, single project
Consistent, brand-driven UI across desktop, mobile and web	Avalonia UI	Skia rendering guarantees pixel parity everywhere
Large existing WinUI/UWP investment reused on web and mobile	Uno Platform	Built directly on the WinUI 3 API surface
Primarily a web app that also needs installed desktop/mobile clients	Blazor Web App + Blazor Hybrid	One component model shared across every surface, including the browser
Windows-only enterprise app with heavy data grids and reporting	WPF	Deepest, most mature third-party control ecosystem
Modern, Fluent-styled, Windows-only app with no legacy baggage	WinUI 3	Native Windows 11 look without WPF's older visual system
Team is web-first and wants a single HTML/CSS/Razor skillset everywhere	Blazor	No XAML to learn; reuses ASP.NET Core knowledge
Migrating an existing WPF app to macOS or Linux without a rewrite	Avalonia UI (via Avalonia XPF)	Commercial compatibility layer built for exactly this case

Frequently Asked Questions#

Which .NET UI framework should I learn first in 2026?#

If you already know ASP.NET Core, learn Blazor first; the concepts transfer immediately and it reaches the most platforms with the least new syntax. If you want native desktop and mobile apps and don't know any XAML framework yet, start with .NET MAUI, since Microsoft's own tooling and documentation are deepest there.

Is Avalonia or Uno Platform more mature?#

Both are production-mature and used by large enterprises. Avalonia has a longer track record specifically as a general-purpose cross-platform XAML framework; Uno Platform's core strength is reusing an existing WinUI or UWP codebase across additional platforms, since it implements that same API surface directly.

Not directly. Each uses its own XAML dialect, so views are not source-compatible between them even though the languages look alike. Share the view-model and service layer instead, and keep each platform's views separate. Blazor is the exception, since the same Razor components run on the web and inside a native BlazorWebView.

Is WPF still a good choice for a new project in 2026?#

For a Windows-only enterprise app, especially one with heavy data grids, charting or a large team already fluent in WPF, yes. It is open source, actively maintained and has the deepest third-party control ecosystem of any framework on this list. For anything that must eventually run outside Windows, choose MAUI, Avalonia, Uno or Blazor instead.

Do Avalonia and Uno Platform require paying for a commercial license?#

No. The core frameworks are free and open source (MIT for Avalonia, Apache 2.0 for Uno Platform's core). Each vendor sells an optional commercial product on top — Avalonia XPF for running existing WPF code on macOS and Linux, and Uno Platform Studio for AI-assisted tooling and a runtime visual designer — but neither is required to ship a production app.

Summary#

Rendering approach — native controls, Skia-drawn, or web-based — determines how an app looks and feels more than any other factor, so decide on that trade-off first.
MAUI, Avalonia, Uno, WPF and WinUI 3 use separate XAML dialects; only the C# view-model and service layer is realistically portable between them.
Blazor is the outlier: the same Razor components run on the server, in the browser via WebAssembly, and inside a native shell through Blazor Hybrid.
Avalonia (MIT) and Uno Platform (Apache 2.0) are free and open source at the core, each with an optional paid product for enterprise tooling or migration.
Match the platform list to the framework first; every other comparison point is secondary once that list rules out a candidate.