If your team knows web technology and the app must look the same on every operating system, start with Electron; if a small installer and low memory use come first, start with Tauri; if deep Windows integration and C# experience matter most, start with .NET. There is no single right answer. The right choice sits where the product's needs meet the team's skills.
This article compares the three options on five criteria: size, performance, operating system integration, team skills and platform needs. On desktop app development projects, we make the technology call by weighing these criteria in writing. If you are not yet sure you need a desktop app at all, read Do You Still Need a Desktop App? first.
What are Electron, Tauri and .NET?
All three are used to build desktop apps, but they come from different approaches:
- Electron: an open-source framework where you write the interface in HTML, CSS and JavaScript. It bundles the Chromium browser engine and Node.js inside the app. Widely used tools such as Visual Studio Code are built with Electron.
- Tauri: an open-source framework where the interface is also written with web technology. Instead of bundling a browser engine, it uses the operating system's own web view (WebView). The native side of the app is written in Rust. Version 2 added iOS and Android support.
- .NET: Microsoft's C#-centered development platform. For desktop, it offers a family rather than a single framework: Windows-only WPF, Windows Forms and WinUI 3; .NET MAUI, which targets Windows, macOS and mobile; and third-party options such as the open-source Avalonia, which runs on all three desktop systems including Linux.
What Electron and Tauri share is an interface built with web technology. In .NET, the interface is mostly made of native components defined in XAML. That difference shapes both the skills your team needs and how the app looks.
How do they compare on installer size and performance?
Size is the most discussed difference, and the reason is simple: Electron ships its own browser engine with every app.
- Electron: even the simplest app includes Chromium and Node.js, so the installer usually runs to tens of megabytes. Memory use is also higher than a comparable native app, and if several Electron apps are open, each runs its own engine. In return, behavior is identical on every system, and a well-built interface runs smoothly.
- Tauri: because it uses the system WebView, packages often stay at a few megabytes and idle memory use is lower. The trade-off: Windows runs WebView2, macOS runs WebKit and Linux runs WebKitGTK, so you need to test the interface on three different engines.
- .NET: the interface is drawn with native components and is generally efficient on CPU, memory and startup time. Package size depends on how you publish. Bundle the .NET runtime and the package grows; rely on a runtime installed on the machine and the package stays small, but your installer has to handle that dependency.
In practice, what users notice is rarely download size. It is startup speed and how much the app consumes over a working day. That weighs differently for a small helper that sits in the tray all day than for a large business app opened once a day.
Which one wins on operating system integration?
Notifications, the system tray, global shortcuts, file associations and launching at sign-in are possible with all three. The difference shows up when you go deeper:
- .NET gives the most direct access to Windows APIs. Window management, shell integration or talking to specialized hardware can be done from C# through native calls. For a Windows-only tool, this is usually the path with the least friction.
- Tauri handles native work on the Rust side. Rust is well suited to systems programming and has good access to operating system APIs. Its plugin system covers common needs, and permissions limit which native commands the front end can call.
- Electron exposes common desktop features through ready-made APIs. Deeper needs usually call for native Node.js modules written in C++. These are powerful, but they need maintenance with every Electron upgrade.
One security rule applies to all three: give the interface layer only the native permissions it needs. Any desktop app that renders web content also inherits some of the browser's risks.
How do your team's skills shape the choice?
Choosing a technology is often really choosing a team. A language the team is not comfortable with slows the first release and makes maintenance harder for years.
- If your team works with React, TypeScript and Node.js, it will be productive in Electron from day one, and you can reuse existing web components and your design system.
- The same team can write a Tauri interface comfortably, but it needs at least one person who knows Rust for the native side. In simple apps, ready-made plugins reduce that need.
- A team with C# and .NET experience can share code and data models across .NET desktop frameworks, especially when business logic is shared with existing .NET services.
Think about hiring too: finding developers experienced in your chosen stack will be your problem for the app's whole lifetime.
Which platforms do you need to reach?
Your list of target platforms narrows the options quickly:
- Windows only: WPF, WinUI 3 or Windows Forms are the natural choices. Electron and Tauri work too, but add a layer.
- Windows, macOS and Linux: Electron and Tauri support all three from one codebase. On the .NET side, Linux needs a third-party framework such as Avalonia; .NET MAUI does not officially support Linux desktop.
- Desktop and mobile together: Tauri 2 and .NET MAUI address this need. If mobile is the main focus, evaluate mobile-first options separately.
Every platform also means its own packaging, signing and testing. Even on Linux you need to decide which formats to offer, such as AppImage or .deb. Our own Next Notify ships as one app for Windows, macOS and Linux, and a target like that shapes the technology decision from day one.
How do they differ on updates and distribution?
Getting the app to users and keeping it current matters as much as writing it. All three have tooling for this, with different approaches:
- Electron: the ecosystem is mature. There are widely used, well-documented tools for packaging and auto-updates, and Windows, macOS and Linux packages can be built from the same configuration.
- Tauri: it offers an official updater plugin and requires updates to be signed. The app verifies that signature before installing a new version it has downloaded.
- .NET: on Windows you can use MSIX packages, ClickOnce or third-party update tools. In corporate environments, mass deployment with MSI is also common.
Whichever framework you pick, code signing and the update pipeline are a workstream of their own. For the details, see Shipping a Windows App.
Which one should you choose, and when?
- Choose Electron if your web team is strong, the interface must look identical everywhere and installer size is not a problem for your users.
- Choose Tauri if a small package and low memory use come first, someone on the team can take on Rust and you are ready to test on different WebView engines.
- Choose .NET if the product is Windows-heavy, needs deep access to the operating system or your team and back-end services already run on C#.
- Choose none of them if the app works well enough in a browser. A web app will ship faster and need less maintenance.
If you are unsure, prototype the riskiest feature, such as a hardware connection or a heavy screen, in two candidate stacks. A few days of measurement give a clearer answer than months of debate.
The best desktop stack is the one your team can comfortably maintain for years.
Frequently asked questions
Are Electron apps really slow?
Not inherently. Installer size and memory use are higher, but perceived slowness usually comes from the app's code, not the framework. Well-optimized Electron apps run smoothly all day.
Do you need to know Rust to use Tauri?
Not for the interface, which is written in React or another web framework. For native features that ready-made plugins do not cover, Rust skills are required.
Can you build macOS and Linux apps with .NET?
Yes, but not with every .NET framework. WPF and Windows Forms run only on Windows. .NET MAUI supports Windows and macOS, and Avalonia supports all three desktop systems including Linux.
Can you switch stacks later?
You can, but it is costly. Keeping business logic separate from the interface makes it easier. Moving between Electron and Tauri preserves most of the web interface; the native layer is what changes.
Are there other options, such as Flutter or Qt?
Yes. Flutter supports Windows, macOS and Linux desktop, and Qt is a mature C++ framework with a long track record. This article focused on the three most often compared options, but the same five criteria apply.
Where to start?
Rank the five criteria for your own product: size, performance, system integration, team and platforms. Write down which ones are must-haves and which are nice-to-haves. That short list usually makes one option stand out on its own.
If you would like to settle the technology choice for your desktop app together, get in touch.