Dev Encyclopedia
ArticlesToolsContactAbout

Get notified when new content drops

No spam. Just new articles, tools, and updates straight to your inbox.

Dev Encyclopedia

A reference for builders

Dev.to
Discord
WhatsApp Channel
daily.dev
Hashnode
X

Content

  • Articles
  • Tools
  • About
  • Contact

Connect

  • support@devencyclopedia.com
  • RSS Feed

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Disclaimer

© 2026 Dev Encyclopedia

Back to top ↑
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Tools
  4. /
  5. DesktopStackPicker
Free · Live

Electron, Tauri, or Deno Desktop? Get a Direct Answer.

Answer a few questions about your team and your project. Get told which one actually fits, and why, not just another comparison table.

Zeeshan Tofiq

Zeeshan Tofiq

Full Stack Developer

How DesktopStackPicker works

  1. 1

    Rendering consistency

    If you need pixel-perfect rendering across every OS, that alone rules out Tauri and Deno Desktop, since both render through the OS's own WebView instead of a bundled engine. Electron is the only option that guarantees identical output everywhere.

  2. 2

    Native and systems-level access

    If you don't need pixel-perfect rendering, the next fork is how deep your OS integration needs to go. Deep native access is where Tauri's Rust requirement, Electron's Node.js modules, and Deno Desktop's FFI layer genuinely diverge.

  3. 3

    Rust comfort or bundle size

    Depending on the native-access branch, you're asked either whether your team can write Rust, or how sensitive your project is to installer size. Both of these directly separate the three frameworks' real tradeoffs.

  4. 4

    Maturity tolerance

    For the branches where Deno Desktop is a live contender, you're asked whether you need mature, battle-tested tooling or can tolerate an experimental-status framework. This is usually the deciding factor between Deno Desktop and its more established alternatives.

  5. 5

    Get your recommendation

    The tool returns a direct recommendation (occasionally two, with an explicit tiebreaker), a plain-English reason tied to your specific answers, and a "why not the others" breakdown for the two options that didn't get picked.

What each recommendation means

Electron

The safe, mature default. Bundles Chromium and Node.js, so rendering is identical on every OS and native access via Node modules is well-trodden ground. The cost is a 100MB+ installer. Recommended when you need pixel-perfect rendering, need deep native access without Rust and without experimental risk, or when nothing about your project actually needs a smaller bundle.

VS Code, Slack, Discord, and Figma's desktop app all ship on Electron.

Tauri

The small-bundle, Rust-powered option. Ships the OS's native WebView instead of bundling a browser engine, producing installers in the single-digit to low-double-digit MB range. Standard apps need no Rust at all; deep native access requires writing Rust commands. Recommended when bundle size matters and either your team can write Rust, or your native needs are standard and you want mature tooling.

Tauri 2.0 has been stable since October 2024 and is used by apps like Pake and tools built on tools like Spacedrive.

Deno Desktop

The newest option, and the only one that keeps the entire stack in TypeScript, including native/systems access through Deno's FFI layer, with no Rust toolchain involved anywhere. Shares Tauri's small-bundle, native-WebView profile. Recommended when you want that TypeScript-only stack and can tolerate using a framework that shipped in Deno 2.9 and hasn't had years of production hardening yet.

Best fit for teams that are TypeScript-first end to end and are specifically evaluating whether it changes a decision they'd previously settled as Electron or Tauri.

Minimal entry point for each framework

Electron: main process

const { app, BrowserWindow } = require("electron");

function createWindow() {
  const win = new BrowserWindow({ width: 900, height: 600 });
  win.loadFile("index.html");
}

app.whenReady().then(createWindow);

Tauri: tauri.conf.json

{
  "productName": "my-app",
  "identifier": "com.example.myapp",
  "app": {
    "windows": [
      { "title": "My App", "width": 900, "height": 600 }
    ]
  },
  "build": {
    "frontendDist": "../dist"
  }
}

Deno Desktop: deno.json

{
  "desktop": {
    "window": { "title": "My App", "width": 900, "height": 600 },
    "entry": "./main.ts"
  },
  "tasks": {
    "dev": "deno run -A --unstable-desktop main.ts"
  }
}

When to use each framework

ScenarioRecommended frameworkWhy
Design tool needing pixel-perfect canvas rendering on every OSElectronOnly option with an identical bundled rendering engine everywhere
Internal tool wrapping an existing TypeScript web appTauri or Deno DesktopBoth give a small installer without a rewrite; pick based on Rust comfort
App needing custom native hardware or OS integration, team knows RustTauriRust commands give full native access with a small bundle
App needing custom native access, JS/TS-only team, production-criticalElectronNode.js native modules cover it without Rust or experimental risk
Side project or internal tool, JS/TS-only team, open to new toolingDeno DesktopSmall bundle, zero Rust, entire stack stays in TypeScript
Existing Electron app being evaluated for a size-focused rewriteTauriMature enough for production, cuts installer size by 5-10x

Frequently Asked Questions

What does DesktopStackPicker do?

DesktopStackPicker is a free decision tool that recommends a desktop app framework, Electron, Tauri, or Deno Desktop, based on a short set of questions about your team's skills and your app's actual constraints.

Instead of leaving you to map a generic comparison table onto your own project, it walks a decision tree over your rendering needs, native access needs, bundle size sensitivity, tolerance for experimental tooling, and Rust comfort, then returns a direct recommendation with the specific reason the other two options didn't fit as well.

How is this different from an Electron vs Tauri comparison article?

A comparison article explains what each framework is and leaves the decision to you. DesktopStackPicker skips that step: it takes your specific answers and maps them directly to a recommendation.

Comparison articleDesktopStackPicker
Explains tradeoffsYesYes
Includes Deno DesktopRarely (most predate it)Yes
Maps to your projectNo, you do the mappingYes, direct recommendation
Explains why the other two loseSometimes, in general termsYes, tied to your specific answers

The always-visible comparison table below the picker still gives you the general reference data if you want to see all three side by side.

Is my data sent to any server?

No. DesktopStackPicker is a pure decision-tree tool that runs entirely in your browser. Your answers drive a static lookup, there is no server call, no API key, and nothing about your project is transmitted anywhere.

How do I read a result that lists two frameworks?

For some answer combinations, two frameworks genuinely fit about equally well, most often Tauri and Deno Desktop, since both use a small OS-native WebView instead of bundling Chromium.

When that happens, the tool names a primary recommendation plus a tiebreaker, and the reasoning explains the one factor (usually your team's Rust comfort, or how much you trust newer tooling) that would tip you toward the second option instead.

Is Deno Desktop ready for a production app?

Deno Desktop shipped as part of Deno 2.9, which is recent, so it has not had the years of production hardening that Electron (since 2013) or Tauri (v2 stable since October 2024) have.

If your project genuinely needs mature, battle-tested tooling, DesktopStackPicker will steer you toward Electron or Tauri instead. If you can tolerate an experimental-status framework, such as an internal tool, a side project, or a team that's willing to absorb some risk for a smaller, TypeScript-only stack, Deno Desktop becomes a live option.

Do I need to know Rust to use Tauri?

Not necessarily. For a standard app (windowing, filesystem access, basic IPC), Tauri's built-in APIs cover the common cases and your entire app can be written in JavaScript or TypeScript.

Rust only becomes a requirement when you need deep, custom native or systems-level access beyond Tauri's built-in commands, for example wrapping a native library, doing low-level hardware access, or building a custom OS integration. In that case you write a Tauri command in Rust and call it from your JS/TS frontend:

rust — src-tauri/src/lib.rs
#[tauri::command]
fn read_native_setting(key: String) -> Result<String, String> {
    // Custom OS-level logic goes here
    Ok(format!("value-for-{key}"))
}
Why is Electron's bundle so much larger than Tauri or Deno Desktop?

Electron ships a full copy of Chromium and Node.js inside every app, which is what guarantees identical rendering across every OS but also produces the 100MB+ installer.

Tauri and Deno Desktop instead call into the operating system's own WebView (WebView2 on Windows, WebKit on macOS, WebKitGTK on Linux), which is already installed on the machine. That's why their installers are typically in the single-digit to low-double-digit megabyte range, at the cost of small rendering differences between operating systems.

Related reading

Guide

Rust Async Traits and Object Safety

If DesktopStackPicker points you toward Tauri and you need custom native commands, this is what writing the Rust side actually looks like.

Guide

TypeScript 7 Migration Guide

Deno Desktop's whole pitch is staying in TypeScript end to end. This covers what's changed in the TypeScript toolchain that a TS-only desktop stack would run on.

Zeeshan Tofiq

Zeeshan Tofiq

Full Stack Developer

Full stack developer with over 6 years of experience building production applications. Writes practical guides on JavaScript, TypeScript, React, Node.js, and cloud infrastructure. Focused on helping developers solve real problems with clean, maintainable code.

Enjoyed this article?

Get practical dev guides, tool updates, and new articles delivered straight to your inbox. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.