Can’t thank you enough for your quick response.
Hope the api doesn’t change much so we can play as long as possible 🙂

I think the only major performance hit is in the initial rendering. I did not notice any sluggishness when updating the internal figures, but I never ran a thorough benchmark.

Thank you for your answer.
Except the initial performance hit you mentioned when rendering the figure with toolstrip for the first time, is there also a UI response degradation while using/updating the figure axes/contents assuming option 1 (pure legacy figures) ?

@Gep – yes, apps and toolstrip take a few seconds to render before being ready. This is noticeably slower than corresponding legacy (Java-based figure) GUIs. Hopefully the performance will improve in future Matlab releases.

That being said, apps and toolstrips provide a radically different way for UI interactivity than the legacy GUI, and the performance impact might well be offset by the sleek-looking appearance. This tradeoff is not much different from that of AppDesigner-vs.-GUIDE — AppDesigner-created uifigures display much more polished UIs than GUIDE, yet are significantly slower to render.

The big benefit here is that you have a choice. You can decide for yourself, based on your specific needs and aesthetic preferences, whether to base your GUI on (1) pure legacy figures, or (2) a combination of apps/toolstrips/figures, or (3) pure AppDesigner/uifigures. I am a strong advocate of not hiding the full set of available tools from users, and letting users decide for themselves what’s best for them.

I have one question w.r.t. to performance: assuming a gui app, not based on GUIDE, which is fairly optimized (I am following your advice/books for years), is there a significant overhead converting/using a toolstrip?