Krate vs Electron vs Tauri: what do you ship?

One app, two shipping workflows

When you release an update, what needs to reach each user? In the usual packaged Electron or Tauri workflow, you distribute the build for their platform. With Krate, you distribute the same application artifact to all three.

Krate users install the native runtime for their system once, then use it to open compatible .krate apps. The runtime handles the platform-specific implementation. The application file stays the same.

See Electron's application packaging and Tauri's distribution formats. Electron's app.asar can package application source, but it is delivered inside a platform-specific Electron distribution; it is not a standalone cross-OS executable.

Compare the distribution boundary

Electron's distribution guide covers packaging, signing, publishing and updates; its process model explains Chromium and Node. Tauri documents platform-specific distribution and its WebView/Rust architecture. Tauri does not bundle Chromium like Electron.

Can I send exactly the same file to all three systems?

Yes, with Krate: build for Krate's interfaces and send the same .krate file to users with compatible Mac, Windows or Linux runtimes. There is no separate application build per OS. You still test the app's behavior on the systems you support.

Try the downloadable Chart example. Its source, full-file checksum and three-OS test evidence let you check the claim yourself. No Rust toolchain or AI account is needed to run the file.

How to decide for your project

If your application depends on a browser DOM or Node ecosystem, account for that investment before moving away from Electron. If you want a web UI plus custom Rust/native integrations, examine Tauri's APIs and deployment requirements. Neither choice means rewriting the entire application independently for every OS.

Evaluate Krate when distributing the same application file matters and your required features map to its interfaces. Start with krate port ./my-project, then validate the findings against the current capability limits. A scan is evidence for planning, not proof the port will preserve every feature.

For a specific app, compare a representative end-to-end task first. If an essential OS integration is missing, stay with a suitable platform or contribute that capability before migrating. See the porting checklist.

Compare costs at the same boundary

With Krate, the runtime is installed once and shared by compatible apps. Measure the first installation as runtime plus app; measure each additional app separately. For every option, record the complete download, installed footprint and app data.

For performance, hold the task and inputs constant, record versions and hardware, distinguish cold/warm startup and count all relevant processes. Native dependencies, renderer work and application design can dominate. The Krate reports describe particular workloads; they are not benchmarks of all Electron or Tauri applications.

What happens when the app changes?

Build the next .krate file and distribute it to your users. They can open that file with a compatible runtime; using the format does not require a hosted app store. Updates to the native runtime are separate from updates to your app.

Compatibility, user-data migration and testing remain part of releasing software. Krate changes the artifact you distribute, not those responsibilities. Start with a representative feature and real data, then use the porting checklist to work through the rest of your application.

Build with Krate

Start with the runtime and a project that fits the current APIs. The runtime and CLI are MIT OR Apache-2.0; Studio has a separate license. Check the licensing details and capability limits.