Skip to content

Choosing the Right C++ GUI Framework - Qt vs wxWidgets vs ImGui

A practical developer-focused comparison of three popular C++ UI frameworks — Qt, wxWidgets, and ImGui — for building modern desktop applications. Here's how I arrived at my decision to go with wxWidgets.

Why I Needed a GUI Framework

I’m building a personal desktop app using C++ that involves:

  • Displaying tables and data.
  • Calling APIs and running data-processing logic on background threads.
  • Showing charts and analytics.

So naturally, I needed a GUI library that is:

  • Native-looking.
  • Stable and well-documented.
  • Capable of handling multimedia and real-time rendering.
  • Actively maintained.

The Contenders: Qt vs wxWidgets vs ImGui

1. Qt

✅ Pros:

  • Mature, feature-rich, and has Qt Designer for rapid prototyping.
  • Strong support for graphics, charts, and threading.
  • Provides both Widgets and QML-based declarative UI.
  • Qt WebEngine is great if you want to embed a browser.

❌ Cons:

  • Heavyweight: Large install size, many dependencies.
  • Licensing complexity (GPL, LGPL, commercial).
  • Steep learning curve if you go beyond basic Widgets.
  • Static builds are tricky.
  • For my specific use case, it felt like overkill.

2. ImGui

✅ Pros:

  • Lightweight and blazing fast.
  • Great for tools, editors, debug UIs, and in-game overlays.
  • Easy to integrate into OpenGL/DirectX renderers.
  • Immediate mode paradigm gives full control.

❌ Cons:

  • Not meant for traditional desktop apps.
  • Layouts are manual, no native look and feel.
  • Complex for handling things like file dialogs, menus, and rich input controls.
  • Poor printing or document support.

Verdict: ImGui is awesome for quick tools or game dev, but not ideal for full-fledged desktop apps with traditional UI expectations.

3. wxWidgets

✅ Pros:

  • Native look and feel across platforms.
  • Open source with a liberal license (no commercial clause headaches).
  • Lightweight compared to Qt.
  • C++-only, no meta-object compiler (like Qt’s moc).
  • Easy to make static builds.
  • Has WebView, multimedia, threading, printing, file dialogs — everything I needed.

❌ Cons:

  • Smaller community than Qt.
  • No official UI designer.
  • Docs and samples are more old-school.

Verdict: wxWidgets is simple, powerful enough, and fits perfectly for traditional desktop applications.

Performance & Build Experience

  • Qt took significantly longer to build from source or integrate via vcpkg/conan. Also, deploying a Qt app means shipping a bunch of .so or .dll files.
  • ImGui was fast to set up but required lots of plumbing for basic features like windows, menus, and file handling.
  • wxWidgets was easy to build with FetchContent in CMake. Static build worked out of the box. Cross-platform support was smooth.

My Final Decision: wxWidgets 🏁

For building a native-looking, responsive, and maintainable C++ desktop app, wxWidgets hits the sweet spot. It gives me:

  • Everything I need without the bloat.
  • Stability and native UI.
  • A good balance between simplicity and capability.

If you’re building a data-heavy, interactive desktop app and want to avoid the bulk of Qt or the limitations of ImGui, I highly recommend giving wxWidgets a shot.

Do you use wxWidgets or something else for your apps? Feel free to reach out or drop feedback.
📧 Email: hello@wasimmohammed.com