How to define value equality for a class or struct (C# Programming Guide)

When you define a class or struct, you decide whether it makes sense to create a custom definition of value equality (or equivalence) for the type. Typically, you implement value equality when you expect to add objects of the type to a collection, or when their primary purpose is to store a set of fields or properties. You can base your definition of value equality on a comparison of all the fields and properties in the type, or you can base the definition on a subset.

In either case, and in both classes and structs, your implementation should follow the five guarantees of equivalence (for the following rules, assume that x, y and z are not null):

1. The reflexive property: x.Equals(x) returns true.

2. The symmetric property: x.Equals(y) returns the same value as y.Equals(x).

3. The transitive property: if (x.Equals(y) && y.Equals(z)) returns true, then x.Equals(z) returns true.

4. Successive invocations of x.Equals(y) return the same value as long as the objects referenced by x and y aren't modified.

5. Any non-null value isn't equal to null. However, x.Equals(y) throws an exception when x is null. That breaks rules 1 or 2, depending on the argument to Equals.

Any struct that you define already has a default implementation of value equality that it inherits from the System.ValueType override of the Object.Equals(Object) method. This implementation uses reflection to examine all the fields and properties in the type. Although this implementation produces correct results, it is relatively slow compared to a custom implementation that you write specifically for the type.

The implementation details for value equality are different for classes and structs. However, both classes and structs require the same basic steps for implementing equality:

1. Override the virtual Object.Equals(Object) method. This provides polymorphic equality behavior, allowing your objects to be compared correctly when treated as object references. It ensures proper behavior in collections and when using polymorphism. In most cases, your implementation of bool Equals( object obj ) should just call into the type-specific Equals method that is the implementation of the System.IEquatable<T> interface. (See step 2.)

2. Implement the System.IEquatable<T> interface by providing a type-specific Equals method. This provides type-safe equality checking without boxing, resulting in better performance. It also avoids unnecessary casting and enables compile-time type checking. This is where the actual equivalence comparison is performed. For example, you might decide to define equality by comparing only one or two fields in your type. Don't throw exceptions from Equals. For classes that are related by inheritance:

   • This method should examine only fields that are declared in the class. It should call base.Equals to examine fields that are in the base class. (Don't call base.Equals if the type inherits directly from Object, because the Object implementation of Object.Equals(Object) performs a reference equality check.)

   • Two variables should be deemed equal only if the run-time types of the variables being compared are the same. Also, make sure that the IEquatable implementation of the Equals method for the run-time type is used if the run-time and compile-time types of a variable are different. One strategy for making sure run-time types are always compared correctly is to implement IEquatable only in sealed classes. For more information, see the class example later in this article.

3. Optional but recommended: Overload the == and != operators. This provides consistent and intuitive syntax for equality comparisons, matching user expectations from built-in types. It ensures that obj1 == obj2 and obj1.Equals(obj2) behave the same way.

4. Override Object.GetHashCode so that two objects that have value equality produce the same hash code. This is required for correct behavior in hash-based collections like Dictionary<TKey,TValue> and HashSet<T>. Objects that are equal must have equal hash codes, or these collections won't work correctly.

5. Optional: To support definitions for "greater than" or "less than," implement the IComparable<T> interface for your type, and also overload the <= and >= operators. This enables sorting operations and provides a complete ordering relationship for your type, useful when adding objects to sorted collections or when sorting arrays or lists.

Record example

The following example shows how records automatically implement value equality with minimal code. The first record TwoDPoint is a simple record type that automatically implements value equality. The second record ThreeDPoint demonstrates that records can be derived from other records and still maintain proper value equality behavior:

namespace ValueEqualityRecord;

public record TwoDPoint(int X, int Y);

public record ThreeDPoint(int X, int Y, int Z) : TwoDPoint(X, Y);

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        // Create some points
        TwoDPoint pointA = new TwoDPoint(3, 4);
        TwoDPoint pointB = new TwoDPoint(3, 4);
        TwoDPoint pointC = new TwoDPoint(5, 6);
        
        ThreeDPoint point3D_A = new ThreeDPoint(3, 4, 5);
        ThreeDPoint point3D_B = new ThreeDPoint(3, 4, 5);
        ThreeDPoint point3D_C = new ThreeDPoint(3, 4, 7);

        Console.WriteLine("=== Value Equality with Records ===");
        
        // Value equality works automatically
        Console.WriteLine($"pointA.Equals(pointB) = {pointA.Equals(pointB)}"); // True
        Console.WriteLine($"pointA == pointB = {pointA == pointB}"); // True
        Console.WriteLine($"pointA.Equals(pointC) = {pointA.Equals(pointC)}"); // False
        Console.WriteLine($"pointA == pointC = {pointA == pointC}"); // False

        Console.WriteLine("\n=== Hash Codes ===");
        
        // Equal objects have equal hash codes automatically
        Console.WriteLine($"pointA.GetHashCode() = {pointA.GetHashCode()}");
        Console.WriteLine($"pointB.GetHashCode() = {pointB.GetHashCode()}");
        Console.WriteLine($"pointC.GetHashCode() = {pointC.GetHashCode()}");
        
        Console.WriteLine("\n=== Inheritance with Records ===");
        
        // Inheritance works correctly with value equality
        Console.WriteLine($"point3D_A.Equals(point3D_B) = {point3D_A.Equals(point3D_B)}"); // True
        Console.WriteLine($"point3D_A == point3D_B = {point3D_A == point3D_B}"); // True
        Console.WriteLine($"point3D_A.Equals(point3D_C) = {point3D_A.Equals(point3D_C)}"); // False
        
        // Different types are not equal (unlike problematic class example)
        Console.WriteLine($"pointA.Equals(point3D_A) = {pointA.Equals(point3D_A)}"); // False
        
        Console.WriteLine("\n=== Collections ===");
        
        // Works seamlessly with collections
        var pointSet = new HashSet<TwoDPoint> { pointA, pointB, pointC };
        Console.WriteLine($"Set contains {pointSet.Count} unique points"); // 2 unique points
        
        var pointDict = new Dictionary<TwoDPoint, string>
        {
            { pointA, "First point" },
            { pointC, "Different point" }
        };
        
        // Demonstrate that equivalent points work as the same key
        var duplicatePoint = new TwoDPoint(3, 4);
        Console.WriteLine($"Dictionary contains key for {duplicatePoint}: {pointDict.ContainsKey(duplicatePoint)}"); // True
        Console.WriteLine($"Dictionary contains {pointDict.Count} entries"); // 2 entries
        
        Console.WriteLine("\n=== String Representation ===");
        
        // Automatic ToString implementation
        Console.WriteLine($"pointA.ToString() = {pointA}");
        Console.WriteLine($"point3D_A.ToString() = {point3D_A}");

        Console.WriteLine("Press any key to exit.");
        Console.ReadKey();
    }
}

/* Expected Output:
=== Value Equality with Records ===
pointA.Equals(pointB) = True
pointA == pointB = True
pointA.Equals(pointC) = False
pointA == pointC = False

=== Hash Codes ===
pointA.GetHashCode() = -1400834708
pointB.GetHashCode() = -1400834708
pointC.GetHashCode() = -148136000

=== Inheritance with Records ===
point3D_A.Equals(point3D_B) = True
point3D_A == point3D_B = True
point3D_A.Equals(point3D_C) = False
pointA.Equals(point3D_A) = False

=== Collections ===
Set contains 2 unique points
Dictionary contains key for TwoDPoint { X = 3, Y = 4 }: True
Dictionary contains 2 entries

=== String Representation ===
pointA.ToString() = TwoDPoint { X = 3, Y = 4 }
point3D_A.ToString() = ThreeDPoint { X = 3, Y = 4, Z = 5 }
*/

Records provide several advantages for value equality:

• Automatic implementation: Records automatically implement System.IEquatable<T> and override Object.Equals, Object.GetHashCode, and the ==/!= operators.
• Correct inheritance behavior: Records implement IEquatable<T> using virtual methods that check the runtime type of both operands, ensuring correct behavior in inheritance hierarchies and polymorphic scenarios.
• Immutability by default: Records encourage immutable design, which works well with value equality semantics.
• Concise syntax: Positional parameters provide a compact way to define data types.
• Better performance: The compiler-generated equality implementation is optimized and doesn't use reflection like the default struct implementation.

Use records when your primary goal is to store data and you need value equality semantics.

Records with members that use reference equality

When records contain members that use reference equality, the automatic value equality behavior of records doesn't work as expected. This applies to collections like System.Collections.Generic.List<T>, arrays, and other reference types that don't implement value-based equality (with the notable exception of System.String, which does implement value equality).

public record PersonWithHobbies(string Name, List<string> Hobbies);

var person1 = new PersonWithHobbies("Alice", new List<string> { "Reading", "Swimming" });
var person2 = new PersonWithHobbies("Alice", new List<string> { "Reading", "Swimming" });

Console.WriteLine(person1.Equals(person2)); // False - different List instances!

This is because records use the Object.Equals method of each member, and collection types typically use reference equality rather than comparing their contents.

The following shows the problem:

// Records with reference-equality members don't work as expected
public record PersonWithHobbies(string Name, List<string> Hobbies);

Here's how this behaves when you run the code:

Console.WriteLine("=== Records with Collections - The Problem ===");

// Problem: Records with mutable collections use reference equality for the collection
var person1 = new PersonWithHobbies("Alice", [ "Reading", "Swimming" ]);
var person2 = new PersonWithHobbies("Alice", [ "Reading", "Swimming" ]);

Console.WriteLine($"person1: {person1}");
Console.WriteLine($"person2: {person2}");
Console.WriteLine($"person1.Equals(person2): {person1.Equals(person2)}"); // False! Different List instances
Console.WriteLine($"Lists have same content: {person1.Hobbies.SequenceEqual(person2.Hobbies)}"); // True
Console.WriteLine();

Solutions for records with reference-equality members

• Custom System.IEquatable<T> implementation: Replace the compiler-generated equality with a hand-coded version that provides content-based comparison for reference-equality members. For collections, implement element-by-element comparison using Enumerable.SequenceEqual or similar methods.

• Use value types where possible: Consider if your data can be represented with value types or immutable structures that naturally support value equality, such as System.Numerics.Vector<T> or Plane.

• Use types with value-based equality: For collections, consider using types that implement value-based equality or implement custom collection types that override Object.Equals to provide content-based comparison, such as System.Collections.Immutable.ImmutableArray<T> or System.Collections.Immutable.ImmutableList<T>.

• Design with reference equality in mind: Accept that some members will use reference equality and design your application logic accordingly, ensuring that you reuse the same instances when equality is important.

Here's an example of implementing custom equality for records with collections:

// A potential solution using IEquatable<T> with custom equality
public record PersonWithHobbiesFixed(string Name, List<string> Hobbies) : IEquatable<PersonWithHobbiesFixed>
{
    public virtual bool Equals(PersonWithHobbiesFixed? other)
    {
        if (ReferenceEquals(null, other)) return false;
        if (ReferenceEquals(this, other)) return true;
        
        // Use SequenceEqual for List comparison
        return Name == other.Name && Hobbies.SequenceEqual(other.Hobbies);
    }

    public override int GetHashCode()
    {
        // Create hash based on content, not reference
        var hashCode = new HashCode();
        hashCode.Add(Name);
        foreach (var hobby in Hobbies)
        {
            hashCode.Add(hobby);
        }
        return hashCode.ToHashCode();
    }
}

This custom implementation works correctly:

Console.WriteLine("=== Solution 1: Custom IEquatable Implementation ===");

var personFixed1 = new PersonWithHobbiesFixed("Bob", [ "Cooking", "Hiking" ]);
var personFixed2 = new PersonWithHobbiesFixed("Bob", [ "Cooking", "Hiking" ]);

Console.WriteLine($"personFixed1: {personFixed1}");
Console.WriteLine($"personFixed2: {personFixed2}");
Console.WriteLine($"personFixed1.Equals(personFixed2): {personFixed1.Equals(personFixed2)}"); // True! Custom equality
Console.WriteLine();

The same issue affects arrays and other collection types:

// These also use reference equality - the issue persists
public record PersonWithHobbiesArray(string Name, string[] Hobbies);

public record PersonWithHobbiesImmutable(string Name, IReadOnlyList<string> Hobbies);

Arrays also use reference equality, producing the same unexpected results:

Console.WriteLine("=== Arrays Also Use Reference Equality ===");

var personArray1 = new PersonWithHobbiesArray("Charlie", ["Gaming", "Music" ]);
var personArray2 = new PersonWithHobbiesArray("Charlie", ["Gaming", "Music" ]);

Console.WriteLine($"personArray1: {personArray1}");
Console.WriteLine($"personArray2: {personArray2}");
Console.WriteLine($"personArray1.Equals(personArray2): {personArray1.Equals(personArray2)}"); // False! Arrays use reference equality too
Console.WriteLine($"Arrays have same content: {personArray1.Hobbies.SequenceEqual(personArray2.Hobbies)}"); // True
Console.WriteLine();

Even readonly collections exhibit this reference equality behavior:

Console.WriteLine("=== Same Issue with IReadOnlyList ===");

var personImmutable1 = new PersonWithHobbiesImmutable("Diana", [ "Art", "Travel" ]);
var personImmutable2 = new PersonWithHobbiesImmutable("Diana", [ "Art", "Travel" ]);

Console.WriteLine($"personImmutable1: {personImmutable1}");
Console.WriteLine($"personImmutable2: {personImmutable2}");
Console.WriteLine($"personImmutable1.Equals(personImmutable2): {personImmutable1.Equals(personImmutable2)}"); // False! Reference equality
Console.WriteLine($"Content is the same: {personImmutable1.Hobbies.SequenceEqual(personImmutable2.Hobbies)}"); // True
Console.WriteLine();

The key insight is that records solve the structural equality problem but don't change the semantic equality behavior of the types they contain.

Class example

The following example shows how to implement value equality in a class (reference type). This manual approach is needed when you can't use records or need custom equality logic:

namespace ValueEqualityClass;

class TwoDPoint : IEquatable<TwoDPoint>
{
    public int X { get; private set; }
    public int Y { get; private set; }

    public TwoDPoint(int x, int y)
    {
        if (x is (< 1 or > 2000) || y is (< 1 or > 2000))
        {
            throw new ArgumentException("Point must be in range 1 - 2000");
        }
        this.X = x;
        this.Y = y;
    }

    public override bool Equals(object obj) => this.Equals(obj as TwoDPoint);

    public bool Equals(TwoDPoint p)
    {
        if (p is null)
        {
            return false;
        }

        // Optimization for a common success case.
        if (Object.ReferenceEquals(this, p))
        {
            return true;
        }

        // If run-time types are not exactly the same, return false.
        if (this.GetType() != p.GetType())
        {
            return false;
        }

        // Return true if the fields match.
        // Note that the base class is not invoked because it is
        // System.Object, which defines Equals as reference equality.
        return (X == p.X) && (Y == p.Y);
    }

    public override int GetHashCode() => (X, Y).GetHashCode();

    public static bool operator ==(TwoDPoint lhs, TwoDPoint rhs)
    {
        if (lhs is null)
        {
            if (rhs is null)
            {
                return true;
            }

            // Only the left side is null.
            return false;
        }
        // Equals handles case of null on right side.
        return lhs.Equals(rhs);
    }

    public static bool operator !=(TwoDPoint lhs, TwoDPoint rhs) => !(lhs == rhs);
}

// For the sake of simplicity, assume a ThreeDPoint IS a TwoDPoint.
class ThreeDPoint : TwoDPoint, IEquatable<ThreeDPoint>
{
    public int Z { get; private set; }

    public ThreeDPoint(int x, int y, int z)
        : base(x, y)
    {
        if ((z < 1) || (z > 2000))
        {
            throw new ArgumentException("Point must be in range 1 - 2000");
        }
        this.Z = z;
    }

    public override bool Equals(object obj) => this.Equals(obj as ThreeDPoint);

    public bool Equals(ThreeDPoint p)
    {
        if (p is null)
        {
            return false;
        }

        // Optimization for a common success case.
        if (Object.ReferenceEquals(this, p))
        {
            return true;
        }

        // Check properties that this class declares.
        if (Z == p.Z)
        {
            // Let base class check its own fields
            // and do the run-time type comparison.
            return base.Equals((TwoDPoint)p);
        }
        else
        {
            return false;
        }
    }

    public override int GetHashCode() => (X, Y, Z).GetHashCode();

    public static bool operator ==(ThreeDPoint lhs, ThreeDPoint rhs)
    {
        if (lhs is null)
        {
            if (rhs is null)
            {
                // null == null = true.
                return true;
            }

            // Only the left side is null.
            return false;
        }
        // Equals handles the case of null on right side.
        return lhs.Equals(rhs);
    }

    public static bool operator !=(ThreeDPoint lhs, ThreeDPoint rhs) => !(lhs == rhs);
}

class Program
{
    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        ThreeDPoint pointA = new ThreeDPoint(3, 4, 5);
        ThreeDPoint pointB = new ThreeDPoint(3, 4, 5);
        ThreeDPoint pointC = null;
        int i = 5;

        Console.WriteLine($"pointA.Equals(pointB) = {pointA.Equals(pointB)}");
        Console.WriteLine($"pointA == pointB = {pointA == pointB}");
        Console.WriteLine($"null comparison = {pointA.Equals(pointC)}");
        Console.WriteLine($"Compare to some other type = {pointA.Equals(i)}");

        TwoDPoint pointD = null;
        TwoDPoint pointE = null;

        Console.WriteLine($"Two null TwoDPoints are equal: {pointD == pointE}");

        pointE = new TwoDPoint(3, 4);
        Console.WriteLine($"(pointE == pointA) = {pointE == pointA}");
        Console.WriteLine($"(pointA == pointE) = {pointA == pointE}");
        Console.WriteLine($"(pointA != pointE) = {pointA != pointE}");

        System.Collections.ArrayList list = new System.Collections.ArrayList();
        list.Add(new ThreeDPoint(3, 4, 5));
        Console.WriteLine($"pointE.Equals(list[0]): {pointE.Equals(list[0])}");

        // Keep the console window open in debug mode.
        Console.WriteLine("Press any key to exit.");
        Console.ReadKey();
    }
}

/* Output:
    pointA.Equals(pointB) = True
    pointA == pointB = True
    null comparison = False
    Compare to some other type = False
    Two null TwoDPoints are equal: True
    (pointE == pointA) = False
    (pointA == pointE) = False
    (pointA != pointE) = True
    pointE.Equals(list[0]): False
*/

On classes (reference types), the default implementation of both Object.Equals(Object) methods performs a reference equality comparison, not a value equality check. When an implementer overrides the virtual method, the purpose is to give it value equality semantics.

The == and != operators can be used with classes even if the class does not overload them. However, the default behavior is to perform a reference equality check. In a class, if you overload the Equals method, you should overload the == and != operators, but it is not required.

TwoDPoint p1 = new ThreeDPoint(1, 2, 3);
TwoDPoint p2 = new ThreeDPoint(1, 2, 4);
Console.WriteLine(p1.Equals(p2)); // output: True

Polymorphic equality

When implementing value equality in inheritance hierarchies with classes, the standard approach shown in the class example can lead to incorrect behavior when objects are used polymorphically. The issue occurs because System.IEquatable<T> implementations are chosen based on compile-time type, not runtime type.

The problem with standard implementations

Consider this problematic scenario:

TwoDPoint p1 = new ThreeDPoint(1, 2, 3);  // Declared as TwoDPoint
TwoDPoint p2 = new ThreeDPoint(1, 2, 4);  // Declared as TwoDPoint
Console.WriteLine(p1.Equals(p2)); // True - but should be False!

The comparison returns True because the compiler selects TwoDPoint.Equals(TwoDPoint) based on the declared type, ignoring the Z coordinate differences.

The key to correct polymorphic equality is ensuring that all equality comparisons use the virtual Object.Equals method, which can check runtime types and handle inheritance correctly. This can be achieved by using explicit interface implementation for System.IEquatable<T> that delegates to the virtual method:

The base class demonstrates the key patterns:

// Safe polymorphic equality implementation using explicit interface implementation
class TwoDPoint : IEquatable<TwoDPoint>
{
    public int X { get; private set; }
    public int Y { get; private set; }

    public TwoDPoint(int x, int y)
    {
        if (x is (< 1 or > 2000) || y is (< 1 or > 2000))
        {
            throw new ArgumentException("Point must be in range 1 - 2000");
        }
        this.X = x;
        this.Y = y;
    }

    public override bool Equals(object? obj) => Equals(obj as TwoDPoint);

    // Explicit interface implementation prevents compile-time type issues
    bool IEquatable<TwoDPoint>.Equals(TwoDPoint? p) => Equals((object?)p);

    protected virtual bool Equals(TwoDPoint? p)
    {
        if (p is null)
        {
            return false;
        }

        // Optimization for a common success case.
        if (Object.ReferenceEquals(this, p))
        {
            return true;
        }

        // If run-time types are not exactly the same, return false.
        if (this.GetType() != p.GetType())
        {
            return false;
        }

        // Return true if the fields match.
        // Note that the base class is not invoked because it is
        // System.Object, which defines Equals as reference equality.
        return (X == p.X) && (Y == p.Y);
    }

    public override int GetHashCode() => (X, Y).GetHashCode();

    public static bool operator ==(TwoDPoint? lhs, TwoDPoint? rhs)
    {
        if (lhs is null)
        {
            if (rhs is null)
            {
                return true;
            }

            // Only the left side is null.
            return false;
        }
        // Equals handles case of null on right side.
        return lhs.Equals(rhs);
    }

    public static bool operator !=(TwoDPoint? lhs, TwoDPoint? rhs) => !(lhs == rhs);
}

The derived class correctly extends the equality logic:

// For the sake of simplicity, assume a ThreeDPoint IS a TwoDPoint.
class ThreeDPoint : TwoDPoint, IEquatable<ThreeDPoint>
{
    public int Z { get; private set; }

    public ThreeDPoint(int x, int y, int z)
        : base(x, y)
    {
        if ((z < 1) || (z > 2000))
        {
            throw new ArgumentException("Point must be in range 1 - 2000");
        }
        this.Z = z;
    }

    public override bool Equals(object? obj) => Equals(obj as ThreeDPoint);

    // Explicit interface implementation prevents compile-time type issues
    bool IEquatable<ThreeDPoint>.Equals(ThreeDPoint? p) => Equals((object?)p);

    protected override bool Equals(TwoDPoint? p)
    {
        if (p is null)
        {
            return false;
        }

        // Optimization for a common success case.
        if (Object.ReferenceEquals(this, p))
        {
            return true;
        }

        // Runtime type check happens in the base method
        if (p is ThreeDPoint threeD)
        {
            // Check properties that this class declares.
            if (Z != threeD.Z)
            {
                return false;
            }

            return base.Equals(p);
        }

        return false;
    }

    public override int GetHashCode() => (X, Y, Z).GetHashCode();

    public static bool operator ==(ThreeDPoint? lhs, ThreeDPoint? rhs)
    {
        if (lhs is null)
        {
            if (rhs is null)
            {
                // null == null = true.
                return true;
            }

            // Only the left side is null.
            return false;
        }
        // Equals handles the case of null on right side.
        return lhs.Equals(rhs);
    }

    public static bool operator !=(ThreeDPoint? lhs, ThreeDPoint? rhs) => !(lhs == rhs);
}

Here's how this implementation handles the problematic polymorphic scenarios:

Console.WriteLine("=== Safe Polymorphic Equality ===");

// Test polymorphic scenarios that were problematic before
TwoDPoint p1 = new ThreeDPoint(1, 2, 3);
TwoDPoint p2 = new ThreeDPoint(1, 2, 4);
TwoDPoint p3 = new ThreeDPoint(1, 2, 3);
TwoDPoint p4 = new TwoDPoint(1, 2);

Console.WriteLine("Testing polymorphic equality (declared as TwoDPoint):");
Console.WriteLine($"p1 = ThreeDPoint(1, 2, 3) as TwoDPoint");
Console.WriteLine($"p2 = ThreeDPoint(1, 2, 4) as TwoDPoint");
Console.WriteLine($"p3 = ThreeDPoint(1, 2, 3) as TwoDPoint");
Console.WriteLine($"p4 = TwoDPoint(1, 2)");
Console.WriteLine();

Console.WriteLine($"p1.Equals(p2) = {p1.Equals(p2)}"); // False - different Z values
Console.WriteLine($"p1.Equals(p3) = {p1.Equals(p3)}"); // True - same values
Console.WriteLine($"p1.Equals(p4) = {p1.Equals(p4)}"); // False - different types
Console.WriteLine($"p4.Equals(p1) = {p4.Equals(p1)}"); // False - different types
Console.WriteLine();

The implementation also correctly handles direct type comparisons:

// Test direct type comparisons
var point3D_A = new ThreeDPoint(3, 4, 5);
var point3D_B = new ThreeDPoint(3, 4, 5);
var point3D_C = new ThreeDPoint(3, 4, 7);
var point2D_A = new TwoDPoint(3, 4);

Console.WriteLine("Testing direct type comparisons:");
Console.WriteLine($"point3D_A.Equals(point3D_B) = {point3D_A.Equals(point3D_B)}"); // True
Console.WriteLine($"point3D_A.Equals(point3D_C) = {point3D_A.Equals(point3D_C)}"); // False
Console.WriteLine($"point3D_A.Equals(point2D_A) = {point3D_A.Equals(point2D_A)}"); // False
Console.WriteLine($"point2D_A.Equals(point3D_A) = {point2D_A.Equals(point3D_A)}"); // False
Console.WriteLine();

The equality implementation also works properly with collections:

// Test with collections
Console.WriteLine("Testing with collections:");
var hashSet = new HashSet<TwoDPoint> { p1, p2, p3, p4 };
Console.WriteLine($"HashSet contains {hashSet.Count} unique points"); // Should be 3: one ThreeDPoint(1,2,3), one ThreeDPoint(1,2,4), one TwoDPoint(1,2)

var dictionary = new Dictionary<TwoDPoint, string>
{
    { p1, "First 3D point" },
    { p2, "Second 3D point" },
    { p4, "2D point" }
};

Console.WriteLine($"Dictionary contains {dictionary.Count} entries");
Console.WriteLine($"Dictionary lookup for equivalent point: {dictionary.ContainsKey(new ThreeDPoint(1, 2, 3))}"); // True

The preceding code demonstrates key elements to implementing value based equality:

• Virtual Equals(object?) override: The main equality logic happens in the virtual Object.Equals method, which is called regardless of compile-time type.
• Runtime type checking: Using this.GetType() != p.GetType() ensures that objects of different types are never considered equal.
• Explicit interface implementation: The System.IEquatable<T> implementation delegates to the virtual method, preventing compile-time type selection issues.
• Protected virtual helper method: The protected virtual Equals(TwoDPoint? p) method allows derived classes to override equality logic while maintaining type safety.

Use this pattern when:

• You have inheritance hierarchies where value equality is important
• Objects might be used polymorphically (declared as base type, instantiated as derived type)
• You need reference types with value equality semantics

The preferred approach is to use record types to implement value based equality. This approach requires a more complex implementation than the standard approach and requires thorough testing of polymorphic scenarios to ensure correctness.

Struct example

The following example shows how to implement value equality in a struct (value type). While structs have default value equality, a custom implementation can improve performance:

namespace ValueEqualityStruct
{
    struct TwoDPoint : IEquatable<TwoDPoint>
    {
        public int X { get; private set; }
        public int Y { get; private set; }

        public TwoDPoint(int x, int y)
            : this()
        {
            if (x is (< 1 or > 2000) || y is (< 1 or > 2000))
            {
                throw new ArgumentException("Point must be in range 1 - 2000");
            }
            X = x;
            Y = y;
        }

        public override bool Equals(object? obj) => obj is TwoDPoint other && this.Equals(other);

        public bool Equals(TwoDPoint p) => X == p.X && Y == p.Y;

        public override int GetHashCode() => (X, Y).GetHashCode();

        public static bool operator ==(TwoDPoint lhs, TwoDPoint rhs) => lhs.Equals(rhs);

        public static bool operator !=(TwoDPoint lhs, TwoDPoint rhs) => !(lhs == rhs);
    }

    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            TwoDPoint pointA = new TwoDPoint(3, 4);
            TwoDPoint pointB = new TwoDPoint(3, 4);
            int i = 5;

            // True:
            Console.WriteLine($"pointA.Equals(pointB) = {pointA.Equals(pointB)}");
            // True:
            Console.WriteLine($"pointA == pointB = {pointA == pointB}");
            // True:
            Console.WriteLine($"object.Equals(pointA, pointB) = {object.Equals(pointA, pointB)}");
            // False:
            Console.WriteLine($"pointA.Equals(null) = {pointA.Equals(null)}");
            // False:
            Console.WriteLine($"(pointA == null) = {pointA == null}");
            // True:
            Console.WriteLine($"(pointA != null) = {pointA != null}");
            // False:
            Console.WriteLine($"pointA.Equals(i) = {pointA.Equals(i)}");
            // CS0019:
            // Console.WriteLine($"pointA == i = {pointA == i}");

            // Compare unboxed to boxed.
            System.Collections.ArrayList list = new System.Collections.ArrayList();
            list.Add(new TwoDPoint(3, 4));
            // True:
            Console.WriteLine($"pointA.Equals(list[0]): {pointA.Equals(list[0])}");

            // Compare nullable to nullable and to non-nullable.
            TwoDPoint? pointC = null;
            TwoDPoint? pointD = null;
            // False:
            Console.WriteLine($"pointA == (pointC = null) = {pointA == pointC}");
            // True:
            Console.WriteLine($"pointC == pointD = {pointC == pointD}");

            TwoDPoint temp = new TwoDPoint(3, 4);
            pointC = temp;
            // True:
            Console.WriteLine($"pointA == (pointC = 3,4) = {pointA == pointC}");

            pointD = temp;
            // True:
            Console.WriteLine($"pointD == (pointC = 3,4) = {pointD == pointC}");

            Console.WriteLine("Press any key to exit.");
            Console.ReadKey();
        }
    }

    /* Output:
        pointA.Equals(pointB) = True
        pointA == pointB = True
        Object.Equals(pointA, pointB) = True
        pointA.Equals(null) = False
        (pointA == null) = False
        (pointA != null) = True
        pointA.Equals(i) = False
        pointE.Equals(list[0]): True
        pointA == (pointC = null) = False
        pointC == pointD = True
        pointA == (pointC = 3,4) = True
        pointD == (pointC = 3,4) = True
    */
}

For structs, the default implementation of Object.Equals(Object) (which is the overridden version in System.ValueType) performs a value equality check by using reflection to compare the values of every field in the type. Although this implementation produces correct results, it is relatively slow compared to a custom implementation that you write specifically for the type.

When you override the virtual Equals method in a struct, the purpose is to provide a more efficient means of performing the value equality check and optionally to base the comparison on some subset of the struct's fields or properties.

The == and != operators can't operate on a struct unless the struct explicitly overloads them.

See also

• Equality comparisons