People who look closely at QuickPaste sometimes ask the same question: it's built with Electron, so why not Tauri? It is a fair question. Electron has a reputation for large downloads and heavy memory use, and plenty of developers prefer Tauri. This article explains the difference honestly, why so many apps still use Electron, and how QuickPaste ended up where it is.
The short version: The current QuickPaste build is built with Electron. Its developer, a recent graduate, only knew Electron when he started and had not come across Tauri. He plans to move QuickPaste to Tauri in a future release, which would be version 2.0.0. There is no release date to announce.
What Electron and Tauri actually are
Both let you build a desktop app with web technologies (HTML, CSS and JavaScript). The difference is what the app carries with it.
Electron bundles a full copy of the Chromium browser engine and Node.js inside every app. Your app behaves the same on every machine, because it brings its own browser with it.
Tauri does the opposite. According to the Tauri 2.0 announcement, the frontend runs inside the operating system's own webview and talks to an application core written mostly in Rust. On Windows, that webview is provided by the system, so the app does not need to ship its own browser engine. Tauri 2.0 also added support for iOS and Android.
Is it true that Electron uses a lot of memory?
Generally, yes, and the reason is structural. Because each Electron app ships its own Chromium, you effectively run a separate browser for every Electron app you have open. That tends to mean:
- Bigger downloads. Electron apps are often tens or hundreds of megabytes, while Tauri apps are often far smaller, commonly in the single-digit to low double-digit megabyte range. Actual sizes vary from app to app.
- Higher memory use. More processes and a full browser engine per app usually cost more RAM than a native or Tauri equivalent.
Two caveats keep this honest. First, the size of the memory gap depends on the app and the platform: a webview still needs a browser engine, Tauri just borrows the system's instead of bundling one. Second, how an app is written matters as much as the framework. A carefully built Electron app can be reasonable, and a careless Tauri app can still be wasteful. Be wary of any single benchmark, including the old ones that circulate widely.
So why do people still choose Electron?
Because for many projects the trade-offs come out in its favor:
| If your priority is... | You would likely choose | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Consistent rendering on every machine | Electron | Every app ships the same Chromium engine |
| Staying in JavaScript or TypeScript | Electron | The main process is Node.js, with no Rust required |
| A mature ecosystem and proven packaging | Electron | Years of tooling, documentation and production apps |
| Lowest risk when moving a web app to desktop | Electron | The web app largely runs as it is |
| Small installers and low idle memory | Tauri | It reuses the system webview instead of bundling Chromium |
| A permission-based security model | Tauri | Tauri 2 uses explicit permissions for native access |
| One codebase that can also reach mobile | Tauri | Tauri 2 targets iOS and Android |
Electron is also proven at scale: widely used apps such as Visual Studio Code and Slack are built on it. A large ecosystem and a lot of answered questions matter when you are building something for the first time.
Why some developers choose Tauri
The appeal is easy to see. A smaller download, lower idle memory and a smaller footprint suit people who care what runs on their machine, which is exactly the audience for a utility that sits in the background all day.
Tauri has trade-offs too. Because it uses each operating system's webview, you have to test how your interface behaves across them. Custom native behavior eventually means writing Rust. Electron has also been established for longer, so its ecosystem and documentation have had more time to mature. Which one is better depends on the project, not on a single ranking.
Why QuickPaste uses Electron
The honest answer is not a long technical evaluation. QuickPaste's developer is a recent graduate. When he started building it, Electron was the framework he knew, and he had not yet come across Tauri. That is how a lot of apps end up on Electron: it is the tool people find first, with the most tutorials and the most answered questions. Building on JavaScript and web technologies let him turn an idea into a working Windows app quickly.
None of that means Electron was the ideal choice. It means it was the choice available at the time, and the app works.
What that means for you today
Because The current QuickPaste build is an Electron app, it carries the general costs described above: a larger download and more memory use than a Tauri build would likely need. We are not going to quote a memory figure here, because we have not published a reproducible measurement, and an unverified number would not help you.
You can check for yourself in a minute:
- Install QuickPaste and let it run.
- Press Ctrl + Shift + Esc to open Task Manager.
- Find QuickPaste in the list and read the Memory column.
One thing does not depend on the framework: where your data lives. QuickPaste is local-first, so your data stays on your PC, with no account and no cloud sync, whichever runtime it uses. The reasons behind that are in why QuickPaste has no cloud sync.
The plan: Tauri and version 2.0.0
QuickPaste's developer plans to move the app to Tauri in the future, and that release would be version 2.0.0. The main draw is the smaller footprint. It is also real work: the same features need to behave the same way on a different runtime, so there is no date to promise here.
If you are choosing for your own project
- If you know web technologies and want to ship quickly, Electron is a sensible, well-supported choice.
- If download size and idle memory are central to your product, look at Tauri early, before you have built a lot on Electron.
- If you need native platform behavior, count the Rust (Tauri) or Node.js native modules (Electron) you will have to maintain.
For how QuickPaste compares with other Windows clipboard managers, see our comparison of the best clipboard managers for Windows.