Tauri vs. Electron Comparison: Best Framework for Your Next App

If you’re building a desktop app in 2025, you’ve likely heard two names again and again: Electron and Tauri.

Tauri has exploded in popularity after its 2.0 release in late 2024, with adoption up by 35% year-over-year. Developers are drawn to its lightweight apps (often under 10 MB), lower memory usage (~30–40 MB idle), and security-first design. Its community has also grown rapidly, now boasting over 17,700 Discord members and thousands of GitHub discussions.

Electron, meanwhile, remains the backbone of feature-rich apps like Slack and VS Code. It offers unmatched ecosystem support, Node.js integration, and cross-platform flexibility. But Electron apps tend to be much heavier, often over 100 MB in size and consuming hundreds of MBs of memory.

Both frameworks are alive and thriving.

The real question is: which one should you choose?

Why We’re Writing This Article?

We’ve built desktop apps in two very different ways across two separate products:

On one side, we built an Electron-based suite with multiple windows and background processes. On the other hand, we built a Tauri desktop app powered by a Rust core and a modern web front end.

These were fully functional products with very different goals. That contrast made them the perfect case study for an honest comparison of developer experience, code quality, performance, and what it feels like to live with these frameworks in production.

What We Learned in Practice

Working with both frameworks taught us some very clear lessons. The differences aren’t just technical details; they translate into real business outcomes that founders, product owners, and teams will notice.

1. Launch faster: In our tests, Electron apps typically took 1–2 seconds to open on mid-range laptops, while Tauri apps started in under half a second. That small gap changes how users feel about your product. Instant launch makes the app feel high-quality and reliable.

2. Ship smaller: Electron packages include a full browser, which pushes installers above 100 MB. Tauri apps are usually under 10 MB. Smaller downloads mean less friction during onboarding and faster distribution through CI/CD pipelines.

3. Use less memory: Electron apps idle at 200–300 MB, while Tauri sits closer to 30–40 MB. Over the course of a long workday, that difference reduces fan noise, improves battery life, and keeps users from force-quitting the app.

4. Safer by default: Electron gives broad access to Node and OS APIs, which can be locked down but requires discipline. Tauri’s Rust backend enforces narrower, opt-in access from the start. That security posture makes it easier to reason about what your app can and cannot touch.

In short, Tauri delivered a snappier, smaller, and safer experience. Electron still shines for rich integrations and heavier apps, but if speed and efficiency matter most, Tauri has a clear edge.

Architecture Differences

The performance gap between Tauri and Electron starts with how each framework is built.

Electron ships a complete Chromium engine inside every app, along with Node.js to access operating system features. This gives developers a lot of power and consistency across platforms, but it also means the app carries a heavy runtime wherever it goes.

Tauri takes a different path. It leans on the system’s built-in WebView for rendering the interface, while keeping a Rust core for anything that needs deeper access to the operating system. By not bundling an entire browser, Tauri apps are leaner by default.

That difference in design shows up directly in the numbers:

These numbers can shift depending on features and platforms, but across our builds the pattern held true. The architecture you choose will shape not just the developer experience, but also how users perceive speed, efficiency, and reliability.

Code Quality: Crossing the Boundary Cleanly

The architecture we saw earlier explains the size and speed differences. But there is another important factor: how each framework handles the boundary between your app and the operating system.

Electron gives you Node.js on the desktop along with a bundled browser engine. This makes it very powerful because you can tap into almost any OS feature. The trade-off is that your app ships with a full browser, which increases size and gives your app more access than you may actually need.

Tauri flips this model. Instead of giving everything by default, it provides a lean WebView for the UI and a Rust core that only exposes what you explicitly allow. This creates a narrower, more deliberate surface. In practice, it helps keep the codebase clean and the attack surface easier to reason about.

Windows and Lifecycle

Let’s look at something simple like managing windows.

In Electron, the setup is flexible, but it comes with a lot of boilerplate:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

// electron/main.ts

App.mainWindow = new BrowserWindow({

width: 1380,

height: 750,

show: false,

webPreferences: {

sandbox: false,

backgroundThrottling: false,

contextIsolation: true,

preload: join(__dirname, "preload.js"),

},

autoHideMenuBar: true,

});

app.on("ready", () => {

// splash, tray, auth, subscriptions, etc.

App.initMainWindow();

App.loadMainWindow();

});

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Tauri, the same behavior is defined in a single Rust builder. Capabilities are added through plugins and commands, making it more concise:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

// tauri/src/main.rs

tauri::Builder::default()

.plugin(tauri_plugin_updater::Builder::new().build())

.plugin(tauri_plugin_single_instance::init(|app, _args, _cwd| {

if let Some(window) = app.get_webview_window("main") {

let _ = window.set_focus();

let _ = window.show();

let _ = window.unminimize();

}

}))

.invoke_handler(tauri::generate_handler![

commands::get_system_info,

commands::restart_service,

])

.run(tauri::generate_context!())?;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The result is less boilerplate and fewer moving parts to maintain.

Safe OS Access

This difference becomes even clearer when the app needs to talk to the operating system.

In Tauri, you expose only the functions you want. For example, restarting a background service:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

// tauri/src/commands.rs

#[tauri::command]

pub async fn restart_service() -> Result<(), String> {

Ok(())

}

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On the front end, it feels like calling a remote function:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

// frontend/invoke-example.ts

import { invoke } from "@tauri-apps/api/core";

await invoke("restart_service");

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Electron, the same thing usually requires preload bridges and IPC channels. It works, but it is easier to accidentally expose more than you intended. Tauri’s command macros and Rust type system help keep the surface sharper and more auditable.

Single Instance Behavior

Even basic behavior like ensuring only one instance of the app runs is more compact in Tauri.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Electron:

// electron/main.ts

const gotTheLock = app.requestSingleInstanceLock();

if (!gotTheLock) app.quit();

app.on("second-instance", () => {

// focus or restore window

});

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tauri:

// tauri/src/main.rs

.plugin(tauri_plugin_single_instance::init(|app, _args, _cwd| {

if let Some(window) = app.get_webview_window("main") {

let _ = window.set_focus();

let _ = window.show();

let _ = window.unminimize();

}

}))

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The takeaway is simple: Electron is flexible but verbose, while Tauri enforces tighter, more intentional boundaries by default. This difference makes Tauri feel safer and easier to maintain, especially in long-lived products where code clarity is as important as performance.

Why Does This Matter?

Lower security risk: With Tauri, only the functions you allow are exposed, which reduces accidental vulnerabilities.

Simpler maintenance: Less boilerplate and clearer boundaries mean developers spend more time adding features and less time fixing fragile code.

Reduced cost over time: A smaller, safer codebase is easier to update, test, and scale as the product grows.

More reliable apps: Fewer moving parts translate into fewer crashes and fewer complaints from end users.

In other words, tighter boundaries and simpler patterns do not just help developers, they also lead to safer, more efficient products that are easier to evolve.

Performance and UX: Why the Switch Mattered

Cleaner code and safer boundaries are important, but what users notice first is performance. This was one of the primary reasons we chose Tauri for our recent projects.

1. Memory and Battery Life

Electron apps often idle at 200 to 300 MB. Tauri apps usually sit at 30 to 40 MB. On a single machine this might not sound dramatic, but over long workdays the difference is huge.

Less memory means less fan noise, cooler laptops, and longer battery life. In practical terms, it kept the app running smoothly in busy stores without staff worrying about the computer slowing down.

2. Smaller Installers, Easier Onboarding

Electron bundles Chromium, which pushes installers above 100 MB. Tauri builds usually stay under 10 MB.

That smaller footprint matters when your customers are downloading over slow networks or when your CI/CD pipeline is packaging releases every week.

For our clients, this meant faster setup, fewer drop-offs during installation, and lighter storage requirements.

3. Cold Start Speed

Startup time is another area where the difference is obvious. Electron typically takes one to two seconds to load. Tauri consistently launched in under half a second.

That near-instant launch feels different to users. It makes the product feel polished, even before they see the first screen.

A Simple Flow That Shows the Difference

Here is a small example from our recent project. The app needs to restart a background service.

The flow looks like this:

Because Tauri uses strong types and a narrow OS boundary, this flow is both safe and predictable. On the frontend, it feels no different than making a regular function call, yet behind the scenes, it keeps OS access tightly contained. For our team, this was a big productivity win.

How Does It Change the Experience?

• Better experience for users: Faster startup and lighter memory use make the app feel reliable and professional.

• Fewer hurdles for adoption: Small installers reduce drop-offs and speed up onboarding.

• Higher productivity for teams: A clean, Promise-based flow means fewer bugs and less time wasted on workarounds.

Performance gains are not just numbers on a chart. They shape how users trust and stick with your product, which is why this shift mattered so much in production.

Developer Experience Highlights

Performance is what users feel, but developer experience is what keeps a product moving forward. When we compared Tauri and Electron in real projects, the way Tauri handled the development workflow stood out.

1. Rust as a backend

Rust gives memory safety by design. It allows us to refactor code with confidence, knowing that the compiler will catch entire classes of errors before they reach production. It also offers concurrency tools when heavy tasks need to run in parallel without slowing the interface.

2. Granular capabilities:

In Tauri, you do not get blanket access to the operating system. Instead, you create commands that expose only what the UI actually needs. This makes the codebase easier to reason about and reduces the risk of unexpected behavior.

3. Plugins instead of glue code

Features like auto-updates, single-instance enforcement, logging, notifications, and local storage are available as ready-made plugins. Instead of stitching together custom solutions, we could drop in these building blocks and focus on the business logic.

4. Boundaries that are enforced

Tauri starts with a “deny by default” posture. Nothing is accessible until you make it accessible. This small shift changes how developers think. It encourages deliberate design and keeps the surface area tight, which helps with both maintainability and security reviews.

Together, these patterns made the development experience cleaner and more predictable. For teams, that means fewer regressions, faster delivery, and a product that can evolve without breaking under its own weight.

What Electron Still Does Well

Tauri may shine in efficiency and safety, but Electron continues to hold its ground in important ways.

1. Ecosystem depth: Electron benefits from years of active use in production apps. Thousands of packages and integrations are already available, which saves time if your project depends on specialized libraries.

2. Familiar environment: Developers who already work with Node.js or browser-based frameworks feel at home in Electron. You can carry over existing skills without needing to learn a new language like Rust.

3. Multi-window flexibility: Electron has more mature support for managing multiple windows and complex workflows. If your product needs heavy windowing features or advanced desktop behaviors, Electron makes it easier to implement.

4. Proven track record: Apps like Slack, Discord, and VS Code run on Electron. That track record reassures teams that the framework can handle scale and complexity when needed.

For some projects, these strengths outweigh the trade-offs in performance. Electron is still a safe choice when ecosystem support, developer familiarity, or advanced desktop behaviours are top priorities.

When to Pick Which: Choosing Between Electron and Tauri

After working with both frameworks and looking at how they differ, the decision really comes down to the kind of product you want to build.

Choose Electron if your app needs the full power of Node.js and you want to tap into its massive ecosystem. It is the safer choice when you rely on existing Node packages, need advanced multi-window workflows, or want the assurance of a framework that has already proven itself at scale with apps like Slack, Discord, and VS Code.

The trade-off is that you will carry more weight in terms of app size and memory use, but for complex or enterprise-grade products this can be worth it.

Choose Tauri if you want your app to feel light, start fast, and consume fewer resources. It is well-suited for tools that users keep open all day, or apps that need to run smoothly on mid-range laptops without draining the battery.

You still get to use your favorite frontend framework like React, Vue, or Svelte, while keeping the backend safe and slim with Rust. Tauri also gives you a security advantage by exposing only what you choose, which makes it easier to maintain discipline in long-lived codebases.

The choice is not about which framework is “better” in general. It is about what matters most for your use case. If efficiency, security, and a native-like feel are top priorities, Tauri is the stronger option.

If ecosystem depth, developer familiarity, and heavy desktop functionality are more important, Electron continues to deliver.

Results We Saw in Production

After building real products with both frameworks, we wanted to measure the difference in practice rather than rely only on documentation or benchmarks.

Here is what stood out from our Tauri builds:

Startup time: On a typical MacBook or Windows laptop, Tauri apps launched in under half a second. That near-instant start changed how people judged the app before they even began using it. By comparison, our earlier Electron builds usually took between one and two seconds to load.

App size: Tauri installers stayed in the single-digit MB range, which made release packaging and distribution much faster. Electron packages were often over 100 MB, which added friction both for users downloading the app and for us shipping updates through CI/CD pipelines.

Memory use: Tauri consumed an order of magnitude less memory at idle, around 30 to 40 MB compared to 200 to 300 MB in Electron. This had a clear impact on long workdays. With Tauri, there were fewer complaints about the app slowing down or needing to be closed and reopened.

Security posture: Tauri made it easier to limit what the app could touch. The narrower attack surface gave us more confidence when reasoning about permissions and planning security reviews.

How We Measured

To make sure these comparisons were fair, we followed a simple methodology.

• Startup time was measured on cold launches across both macOS and Windows. We averaged three launches for each platform.

• Memory use was measured with the system’s native tools (Activity Monitor on macOS and Task Manager on Windows) after letting the app idle at the home screen.

• Installer size was taken directly from CI artifacts across equivalent feature sets, so we could compare similar builds.

• For security, we verified the paths to the operating system. In Tauri this meant checking the explicit allowlist of commands, while in Electron it meant reviewing preload scripts and IPC routes.

This approach gave us numbers we could trust and a basis for comparing the two frameworks in production.

Security Model in Practice

The raw numbers matter, but so does the security story behind them.

Default surface: Electron ships with a full Chromium and Node.js stack. Tauri relies on the system WebView paired with a Rust core, which results in a smaller surface area.

Least privilege: In Tauri, commands opt in to capabilities. Nothing is available by default. Electron can be configured the same way, but it requires more manual effort through preload scripts and content security policies.

Updates: Tauri’s updater plugin, combined with signed artifacts, made our release pipeline simple and secure. Electron also has mature solutions for updates, but the Tauri flow felt lighter to manage.

Crash isolation: In Tauri, operating system calls are handled in Rust processes with limited surfaces. This separation reduced the impact when the user interface encountered bugs, making the system more resilient overall.

Migration Playbook: Moving from Electron to Tauri

For teams already invested in Electron, moving to Tauri does not have to be a complete rewrite.

The process can be approached step by step. Here is how we recommend tackling it.

1. Inventory your features

Start by making a list of every place your app touches the operating system. This includes notifications, tray icons, auto-start behavior, and file system access. Knowing where those connections exist will give you a clear roadmap of what needs to be rebuilt.

2. Isolate Heavy Compute and OS Calls

Before porting, move any heavy tasks or system calls behind a slim interface. This makes your current Electron app cleaner, and it sets you up for an easier transition. The same interfaces can then be implemented in Tauri commands.

3. Rebuild The Boundary with Tauri Commands

In Tauri, OS functionality is exposed through typed commands written in Rust. The frontend simply calls invoke() as if it were a normal function. This step is where you define what your app is allowed to do, keeping the surface focused and safe.

4. Add Plugins Where Possible

Common features like logging, auto-updates, single-instance enforcement, notifications, and local storage are available as Tauri plugins. Using these saves time and keeps the codebase smaller.

5. Recreate Window Lifecycle and Tray Behavior:

If your app uses multiple windows or has special tray interactions, bring these into Tauri next. Confirm that the single-instance behavior works as expected so users never end up with duplicate sessions.

6. Ship a Beta and Measure

Once the basics are in place, release a beta build. Measure startup time, idle memory, and installer size. Compare them against your Electron baseline and iterate where needed. These benchmarks will confirm whether the migration delivers the improvements you expect.

IPC vs Command Boundary

Another important difference between Electron and Tauri is how the frontend communicates with the operating system.

This “boundary” defines how safe, predictable, and maintainable the app becomes over time.

The Tauri Approach

In Tauri, the communication flow is simple and narrow:

Frontend → invoke() → tauri::command → Rust Core → OS

You define commands in Rust that explicitly say what the app can do. On the frontend, calling one of these commands feels like a normal function call.

For example, fetching system information might look like this:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

// tauri/src/commands.rs

#[tauri::command]

pub fn get_system_info() -> SystemInfo {

// Return sanitized system information

}

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

// frontend/system.ts

import { invoke } from "@tauri-apps/api/core";

const info = await invoke<SystemInfo>("get_system_info");

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This design makes it clear where OS access happens and ensures nothing is exposed unless you allow it.

The Electron Approach

Electron takes a broader route that relies on preload scripts and IPC (inter-process communication). The flow looks like this:

Frontend → Preload → ipcMain → Node APIs → OS

You typically expose functions from a preload script and connect them to handlers in the main process.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

// electron/preload.ts

import { contextBridge, ipcRenderer, shell } from "electron";

contextBridge.exposeInMainWorld("api", {

getAppVersion: () => ipcRenderer.invoke("get-app-version"),

openExternal: (url: string) => shell.openExternal(url),

});

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

// electron/main-ipc.ts

import { app, ipcMain } from "electron";

ipcMain.handle("get-app-version", () => app.getVersion());

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This works well and is very flexible, but it requires discipline to avoid exposing too much. Without careful review, preload bridges can expand the surface area of the app.

Tauri’s command model is like giving the app a locked toolbox where you choose which tools are inside. Electron hands over the full toolbox by default, and you need to carefully decide what to lock away.

For teams building apps that will live in production for years, that difference affects maintainability, security, and developer speed. Tauri enforces sharper boundaries from the start, while Electron puts the responsibility in your hands.

Lessons Learned Along the Way

Even though Tauri brings real benefits, there are a few things to watch out for.

Keep commands focused: Exposing too many OS calls defeats the security model. Keep the surface narrow and intentional.

Plan windows early: Electron makes multi-window apps easy. Tauri can handle them too, but you need to design the flow from the start.

Test real first impressions: Cold starts matter more than warm ones. Measure both so you know how users will actually experience your app.

Control your logs: Tiny installers lose their charm if log files grow without limits. Rotate and trim logs regularly.

What Teams Ask Us Before Switching

When teams consider moving from Electron to Tauri, a few questions always come up. These are the ones we hear most often during discovery calls and early planning.

We thought to share them here so you can avoid the same doubts and make a more informed decision before starting your own journey.

Can migration be incremental?

Yes. Start by wrapping OS calls behind a slim interface, then move UI workflows over one by one.

What about Node libraries?

Some will need to be replaced with Rust crates or HTTP helpers. The frontend stays the same, React, Vue, or Svelte still work fine.

Is Tauri automatically secure?

It starts with less surface area, which helps, but discipline is still needed. Good boundaries are your responsibility.

These answers are not meant to be exhaustive, but they highlight the practical trade-offs that matter most when evaluating a migration. The goal is to make sure you go in with clarity rather than assumptions.

Looking Back

For us, switching to Tauri was not just about chasing performance numbers. It gave us faster startup times, smaller builds, lower memory use, and a security model that fits long-term growth.

Electron served us well in earlier projects and proved it can handle scale, but Tauri let us create a leaner and more reliable runtime.

If you are starting fresh or planning a move, both options have merit. What matters is aligning the choice with your product’s goals and user needs.

Aravind Jaimon

•

Senior Software Engineer

Aravind is a fullstack dev at RaftLabs, building fast, modern web and mobile apps.