Pick Tauri when installer size matters, you want a Rust core, or you may ship to iOS and Android later from the same code. Pick Electron when your app must render the same on every computer, or your team already builds on Node.js and its native modules.
In our own Windows 11 test, the Tauri installer was 1.05 MB and the Electron installer was 106.1 MB, but idle memory was only about 5% apart.
We build desktop apps in both Tauri and Electron, so we don’t have a favorite to defend. This post is the set of questions we ask before recommending either one, with the technical differences behind them.
Who this is for: a company or team choosing a stack for a new desktop app. Who should read something else: if your team writes C# every day, compare Avalonia, .NET MAUI and WPF first. If you have already picked Tauri and need someone to build it, read hire a Tauri developer.
We haven’t published named client projects for either framework yet, so nothing here is a case study. The numbers below come from our own test build, with the code public.
The short version
| Tauri | Electron | |
|---|---|---|
| What ships in the app | Your code and a Rust core. It uses the system’s webview | Your code plus its own Chromium and Node.js |
| Installer size, our test app on Windows 11 | 1.05 MB | 106.1 MB |
| Idle memory, one window, our test | 142 MB | 149 MB |
| Rendering engine | WebView2 on Windows, WebKit on macOS and Linux | The same Chromium everywhere |
| Back-end language | Rust | JavaScript or TypeScript on Node.js |
| Mobile | Android and iOS from the same codebase | Desktop only |
| Updates | Signed updates required, can’t be turned off | Built-in updater, free service for open-source apps |
| Release pace | Tauri 2 is the current major version | A new major version every 8 weeks |
The size and memory rows come from our Tauri vs Electron vs WPF benchmark: the same small app, built in each framework and measured on one Windows 11 laptop (checked 2026-10-23). The size gap is real. The memory gap was much smaller than most posts claim, about 5%, because on Windows Tauri still runs a Chromium engine through WebView2. It’s Microsoft’s copy instead of yours.
What each one actually bundles
Electron embeds Chromium and Node.js inside every app. Your JavaScript, HTML, and CSS run inside a full browser engine, and Node gives you filesystem and OS access from the same process tree. That’s why anything that works on the web tends to work in an Electron app without changes. It’s running in a current version of Chromium that you control.
Tauri takes the opposite approach. Instead of shipping a browser, it uses the web rendering engine the operating system already has: WebView2 (Microsoft Edge’s engine) on Windows, WKWebView on macOS, and WebKitGTK on Linux. The app itself compiles to a native Rust binary that talks to that webview. Nothing about a browser gets bundled, which is why Tauri’s site says “the size of a Tauri app can be little as 600KB” (Tauri).
In our test, most of Electron’s size was Electron itself. The main executable alone was 234.6 MB on disk, and our own app code was a few kilobytes.
The honest cost of each approach
Every architecture trades one problem for another. Here are both.
Electron’s cost is download size, and memory once several windows are open. You ship a dedicated copy of Chromium and Node with every app, and Electron starts “a separate renderer process for each open BrowserWindow” (Electron, process model). That cost buys consistency: the same rendering engine runs on every OS, so a bug you fix on Windows is fixed everywhere.
Tauri’s cost is the opposite. Because it uses the OS webview, your app renders through three different engines. Tauri’s docs say Windows uses WebView2, “based on Microsoft Edge and therefore Chromium”, while macOS and Linux use WebKit, and on Linux the WebKitGTK version “varies by distribution” (Tauri, webview versions). So a screen that looks right on Windows can break on a Mac or on an older Linux distribution, and you test three rendering targets instead of one.
Neither cost goes away with more effort. They’re built into each design, and picking a framework means picking which one you’d rather manage.
Process model and security
Electron’s multi-process model mirrors Chromium’s: one main process with Node access, a renderer process per window, and a preload script bridging the two. The safe defaults are now on. Electron’s security guide says “Context Isolation is the default behavior in Electron since 12.0.0”, and process sandboxing has been the default “since 20.0.0”. The pattern is well documented: keep Node out of the renderer and expose only what you need through contextBridge.
Tauri’s model is different. The back end is Rust, and the web layer gets no system access unless you grant it. Tauri’s security docs say “Capabilities define which permissions are granted or denied for which windows or webviews.” Rust’s compiler also rules out whole classes of memory bugs before the app runs. That’s a real advantage for apps that handle sensitive local data. It doesn’t fix the webview differences above. Security and rendering consistency are separate questions.
Shipping updates
Both frameworks ship an auto-update path, and both expect you to run some of the infrastructure yourself.
Electron’s autoUpdater module is built in, and for open-source apps on GitHub the Electron team runs a free update service (update.electronjs.org). Closed-source projects need their own update server or a third-party one.
Tauri’s updater is a plugin you add to the project. Signature checks are mandatory: the docs say “This cannot be disabled.” You sign every release with a private key, and the app checks that signature before it installs anything. The same page warns that if you lose that key, “you will NOT be able to publish new updates to the users that have the app already installed.” Keep it in a secret store you control, with a backup.
Both need code signing on Windows and macOS, or users see warnings on install. Prices are in what a code signing certificate costs, and update design is in desktop auto-update strategies.
Keeping up with releases
Electron moves fast. Its release timeline says “Electron’s cadence between major version releases is 8 weeks long” and “The latest three stable major versions are supported.” On 2026-11-07 the supported versions were 43, 44 and 45, version 42 had reached end of life on 2026-10-20, and version 46 was due on 2027-01-05 (Electron release schedule, checked 2026-11-07). So an Electron app that isn’t updated falls out of support in about six months. Budget for regular upgrades, because each one also brings a new Chromium with security fixes.
Tauri 2 is the current major version. The latest stable release was 2.12.5 (crates.io, checked 2026-11-07). Because Tauri uses the system webview, Windows and macOS update the engine for you, and you update the Tauri crates and plugins on your own schedule.
How we choose
A few scenarios come up often enough that we have defaults for them, though we still confirm each one against the actual project.
For an internal tool built for a handful of people, install size and memory rarely matter, so the decision comes down to what the team already knows. If they’re comfortable with Rust or willing to learn a thin layer of it, Tauri usually wins on how little it asks of the machine.
For a consumer app with a wide download base, every megabyte of installer is friction for someone on a slow connection. We lean Tauri here, and we test on real Macs and on the Linux distributions the client cares about.
A team that’s already deep in JavaScript and Node, with native modules or IPC patterns built around Electron, rarely gains from rewriting that foundation. We stay in Electron and ship.
For a security-sensitive, local-first app whose data shouldn’t leave the device, Tauri’s capabilities model and Rust core are a genuine advantage. We still weigh that against the webview differences.
If the same product will need phone apps later, that pushes toward Tauri, since Tauri’s site says you can “Build your app for Linux, macOS, Windows, Android and iOS - all from a single codebase.” Check that your developer has shipped to the app stores before you count on it.
None of these are absolute. A security-minded team fluent in Node might reasonably stay in Electron and harden the process boundaries instead of switching stacks. For other options, such as Wails, Flutter and Avalonia, see Electron alternatives.
FAQ
Is Tauri better than Electron?
Not in every case. Tauri makes much smaller installers and has a stricter security model. Electron renders the same on every OS and has a longer track record. In our test, the memory difference with one window open was only about 5%.
Do I need to know Rust to use Tauri?
A little. Most of a Tauri app is web code, and many apps only need a thin Rust layer for file access, hardware, or local data. For a worked example, see how a desktop POS drives a receipt printer, scanner, and cash drawer. Someone on the team should be able to read and fix that layer.
Is Tauri ready for production?
Yes. Tauri 2 is the current stable version. The work that takes time is the same as for Electron: code signing, auto-updates, and testing on each operating system.
Can I move an Electron app to Tauri?
Usually the web front end moves over with small changes. The Node.js back end does not. Anything in Electron’s main process, and any native Node modules, has to be rewritten in Rust or replaced with Tauri plugins. Plan that part as new work.
Does Tauri use less RAM than Electron?
Yes, but by much less than most posts claim. With one window open on Windows 11, our test app used 142 MB idle in Tauri and 149 MB in Electron, about 5% apart (our benchmark). On Windows, Tauri still runs Chromium through Microsoft’s WebView2. We measured one window only. Electron starts a separate renderer process for each open window, so test your own app with the number of windows your users keep open.
Which one makes the smaller app?
Tauri, by a wide margin. Our test installer was 1.05 MB for Tauri and 106.1 MB for Electron, on Windows 11.
If you’re weighing this for a real app, tell us what you’re building and we’ll walk through it against your constraints. Our rate is $30 an hour, or by milestone. More on how we scope desktop app projects.