Difference between MVP and MVVM

Model View Presenter (MVP) architecture, which aids in creating interfaces that meet user needs, is descended from the Model View Controller form. The presenter serves as a middleman and gives the consumer the rationale in an understandable form. The developers are aware of this design trend. The architectural pattern's Model-View-View-Model (MVVM) pattern aids in the creation of a graphical user interface. Either a markup language or GUI code is used to accomplish it. The layer may be the software's back-end logic or business logic. It mostly serves to illustrate how GUI development is separated.

Important distinctions between MVP and MVVM

The following are the main distinctions between MVP and MVVM:

• The data state, which is present in the Model layer, is where data is retrieved and modified. The presenter layer receives this data transfer. In MVP, there is no communication with the view state. In the business logic itself, MVVM contains a model where data is kept in a repository. Data are in accordance with requests made by a View model.
• In MVP, the view model interacts with the presenter and has a user interface, activities, and data pieces. The MVVM view model only has a user interface and no business logic at all.
• In MVVM, the business logic is housed in a View Model. This is effective at testing and coupling, and it helps to build a bridge between the view and the business logic. A UI change is required in between. While business logic is explicitly present in the view in the MVP, this View Model is absent.
• In MVP architecture, data from the model is given by a presenter, which also controls how the application behaves. It oversees the View layer and controls how the Model and View interacts. In addition, data is saved back to the model. In MVVM, observables are created in each UI component rather than the presenter layer, which is absent.
• Because the view layer in MVP is not important and loosely connected with itself, the user can easily ignore it. The view layer is crucial because it creates the connection between the view and view model in MVVM, making it impossible to remove the view layer in MVVM.
• Since the MVP's view and presenter layers may be reused, maintaining this design is simple. Additionally, understandable codes created in either markup language or another coding language can be used to maintain it. In MVVM, the view and model do not communicate, so the code is executed by units. This makes MVVM unit testing easier.
• While only unit testing is possible in MVVM, the entire unit can be integrated tested in MVP. This is so that codes in MVP may be easily maintained whereas those in MVVM cannot.
• The code is very large and difficult to handle with MVVM. When testing and developing interactions between the layers, this causes problems. However, the codes in MVP are manageable and compact.

Comparison Table between MVP and MVVM

MVP	MVVM
Since the MVP architecture already includes a presenter layer that displays the developers' user interface, observables are not required.	Due to the Presenter's absence, observables are required for each component of the User Interface.
A change in the view has an impact on the presenter's user interface because of the close relationship between the two.	Because the view and view model are loosely connected, the layers can operate independently within each layer and perform unit testing.
Because there are more interfaces, the architecture is more complex because it is used more frequently.	Less interfaces are utilised because there is no user interface. Compared to MVP, the architecture is lightweight.
Because business logic and user interface are independent, testing on the layers as standalone and as integration testing can be done with ease.	Testing is challenging since the business logic and user interface are not distinct. In that scenario, only unit testing is possible.
MVP applications are simple to debug and using the architecture to compile will take little time.	Due to the intricate layering patterns and architectural design, MVVM is difficult to debug.
The fragments and activity classes are guaranteed to operate according to their own rules because the layers are divided.	Because the layers are not distinct, the classes cannot be guaranteed to deliver the user-expected outcome.
The MVP architecture makes it difficult to create new releases and cannot always guarantee maintenance and availability.	The architecture makes it simple to create new releases, and the layers' upkeep is highly commendable.