Desktop
Tauri vs Electron: Choosing a Framework for Cross-Platform Desktop Apps
Both let you build desktop apps with web technology. They make very different trade-offs. We build with Tauri; here is when we would not.
By Prolificrew Engineering · · 4 min read
In this article
If your team knows web technology and needs a desktop app for macOS, Windows and Linux, two frameworks dominate the conversation: Electron and Tauri. Both let you build the interface with HTML, CSS and JavaScript. They differ in what sits underneath, and that difference shapes app size, memory, security and the problems you will meet. We build with Tauri (our macOS app Cut Video Gaps uses Tauri and Rust) and have worked with Electron, so this is a view from both sides.
How each one works
Electron bundles a copy of Chromium and Node.js with every app. Your interface runs in Chromium, and your app’s main process runs in Node.js with full access to the operating system. Because everyone ships the same Chromium version that you test with, rendering is identical on every platform.
Tauri uses the operating system’s own web view (WKWebView on macOS, WebView2 on Windows, WebKitGTK on Linux) and a back end written in Rust. It does not ship a browser engine, which is why Tauri apps are small. Version 2 of Tauri also supports building for iOS and Android from the same project.
Side-by-side
| Electron | Tauri | |
|---|---|---|
| Back-end language | JavaScript / TypeScript (Node.js) | Rust (plus any language through sidecar binaries) |
| Rendering engine | Bundled Chromium (consistent) | System web view (varies by OS and version) |
| App size | Large: includes a full browser engine, so even simple apps are commonly tens of megabytes or more | Small: typically a few megabytes before your own assets |
| Memory use | Higher: a Chromium instance plus Node.js | Lower in most cases, depending on the system web view |
| Security model | Powerful by default; you must lock it down (context isolation, limited IPC) | Explicit permissions: the front end can only call back-end commands you expose |
| Ecosystem | Very large and mature (many production apps, large library selection) | Growing quickly, smaller plugin set |
| Mobile support | No | Yes, in Tauri 2 |
| Learning curve | Low for web teams | Rust adds a learning curve for the back end |
The web view consistency trade-off
This is the most important practical difference. With Electron, you test once against one browser engine. With Tauri, your interface runs in three different engines depending on the user’s platform, and the version depends on the operating system. In practice that means testing on every platform you support, avoiding very new CSS and JavaScript features without checking support, and having fallbacks. Most modern features work everywhere, but occasional differences in rendering, fonts and APIs do appear.
Security and the permission model
A desktop app that loads web content is a security-sensitive thing. Electron gives your code a lot of power by default, so security depends on following its hardening guidance: enable context isolation, avoid exposing Node.js APIs to the page, validate messages between processes and keep Electron updated. Tauri starts from the opposite position: the web interface is sandboxed and can only invoke the specific commands and capabilities you grant. That does not make Tauri apps automatically safe, but it makes it harder to make a dangerous mistake.
Heavy work: video, files and native libraries
Many desktop apps exist because the browser is not enough: they process large local files, run native binaries or need background work. Rust is a strong fit for this. Cut Video Gaps combines Tauri, Rust and FFmpeg for exactly this kind of heavy local processing. Tauri also supports bundling external binaries (called sidecars) so you can ship tools like FFmpeg with the app. Electron can do the same from Node.js, and some teams prefer staying in one language for the whole app.
Distribution: signing, notarisation and updates
Whichever framework you choose, plan the release pipeline early. macOS apps need code signing and notarisation to open without warnings, Windows apps benefit from signing to avoid SmartScreen warnings, and both frameworks offer auto-update mechanisms that you must configure and secure. These tasks take longer than most teams expect and are a large part of what we handle on desktop projects.
Which should you choose?
- Choose Electron if you need identical rendering everywhere, your team is entirely JavaScript, you depend on Node.js libraries, or you want the largest ecosystem and the most documented solutions.
- Choose Tauri if small downloads and low memory use matter, you are comfortable adding Rust (or you have us), you want a stricter security model, or you plan to target mobile from the same codebase.
- Consider something else (native toolkits, or React Native for desktop) if you need the platform’s own UI controls, or accessibility and integration that a web view cannot match.
If you are weighing the two for a real product, the quickest route is a small spike: build the riskiest screen and the riskiest native feature in your top candidate and measure start-up time, memory and the effort involved. We do exactly that at the start of desktop projects. Learn more about our cross-platform and desktop development work, or contact us to talk through your app.