P3D VS Ursina (comparison)

I’ve found out about Ursina which also allows to work with game engine using Python.
Apparently it’s using P3D under the hood. How does Ursina compares to P3D ?

Another way to put my question is what Ursina offers that P3D doesn’t ?

Ask the Ursina developers a question. As far as I know, only the initial features are implemented there. Without physics or anything else.

I just asked. Community member said Ursina is easier / simpler to use. Apparently some found P3D APIs too complicated.

In any case, the developers of Ursina better know the advantages of their engine. Rather than users of Panda3D.

They are the same engine under the hood. If you like the simpler abstractions that Ursina (presumably) offers over Panda3D, use Ursina. If you need the additional flexibility of being able to implement those abstractions yourself, use Panda3D.

Also keep in mind that Ursina is a relatively new engine, so it will not likely be as mature as Panda3D (yet).

Noted. I just asked out of curiosity. I don’t feel tempted to switch.

i prefer panda3d because ursina is glitchy