The Electron vs Tauri comparison on OctoCounts shows side-by-side source line counts for electron/electron and tauri-apps/tauri, counted under the rules and on the dates stated below: files, total lines, code lines, comment lines, blank lines, and per-language totals, pinned to the exact commits listed below.
This page compares the source lines of code (SLOC) of electron/electron and tauri-apps/tauri using cached OctoCounts reports. Code size is not code quality: a larger count only means more source material, not a better or worse project.
As of 2026-10-29, electron/electron contains 287,116 total lines (224,715 code) across 1,298 files, while tauri-apps/tauri contains 162,926 total lines (112,398 code) across 681 files as of 2026-10-28. electron/electron has about 2.0x the counted code lines of tauri-apps/tauri under the same engine and counting rules. Code size is not code quality: a larger count only means more source material, not a better or worse project.
| Metric | electron/electron | tauri-apps/tauri |
|---|---|---|
| Files | 1,298 | 681 |
| Total lines | 287,116 | 162,926 |
| Code lines | 224,715 | 112,398 |
| Comment lines | 23,545 | 26,922 |
| Blank lines | 38,856 | 23,606 |
| Languages counted | 15 | 21 |
Top languages in electron/electron: C++ (40.2% of code), TypeScript (37.1% of code), C Header (11.1% of code). Top languages in tauri-apps/tauri: Rust (70.1% of code), JSON (9.8% of code), YAML (7.2% of code). TypeScript appears in both top language lists; C++, C Header, Objective-C++, JavaScript appear only in electron/electron's top languages; Rust, JSON, YAML, TOML appear only in tauri-apps/tauri's top languages.
Methodology: both counts come from cached OctoCounts reports generated with tokei. electron/electron was counted at ref main (commit 3e2350dc8026) on 2026-10-29; tauri-apps/tauri was counted at ref dev (commit 548a3692f594) on 2026-10-28. See the counting methodology for ignored directories and analysis options.
Both reports use the same engine and effective counting rules. Repository declarations, when enabled, are specific to each repository. electron/electron: tokei-14.0.0, policy directories-v1; docs excluded, tests excluded, generated excluded. Excluded directory names: .cache, .generated, .git, .next, __tests__, build, dist, doc, docs, documentation, fixtures, gen, generated, node_modules, target, test, tests, vendor. Ignored languages: none. Repository declarations: off. Exclusions are rule-based; they do not prove that every test, document or generated file was removed. tauri-apps/tauri: tokei-14.0.0, policy directories-v1; docs excluded, tests excluded, generated excluded. Excluded directory names: .cache, .generated, .git, .next, __tests__, build, dist, doc, docs, documentation, fixtures, gen, generated, node_modules, target, test, tests, vendor. Ignored languages: none. Repository declarations: off. Exclusions are rule-based; they do not prove that every test, document or generated file was removed.
Background observations recorded on 2026-09-08; language descriptions here are historical context, not claims about the current filtered shares. Use this page's measured language breakdown for current counts. Repository layout before counting filters: electron/electron is the Electron repository: the embedded Chromium and Node.js integration layer, native shell code, API implementation, and documentation — but not Chromium's or Node's own source, which are consumed as prebuilt binaries. tauri-apps/tauri is the Tauri core repository: the Rust runtime, the process and IPC layer, and the CLI tooling; it equally does not count the system webview it delegates to. Both repositories are the glue layer each project maintains, not the browser engines involved.
Electron exposes a JavaScript API over native integration code, while Tauri uses a Rust core to connect web content to the operating system. The selected snapshots determine how these layers appear in each report's language totals.
The engine asymmetry matters when reading the totals: Electron bundles Chromium with each app, while Tauri relies on the operating system's webview, so neither repository's SLOC represents what ships inside a finished desktop app.
Repository size is not install size and not memory footprint. A finished app's weight depends on the engine strategy above, not on how many source lines the framework repository contains.
Sources: electron/electron repository · tauri-apps/tauri repository. Statements verified 2026-09-08.
Evidence and next steps:
Saved reports remain subject to cache cleanup and replacement. Export their JSON for durable citation; live report URLs can change.
Note: code size is not code quality. OctoCounts only reports reproducible line counts and makes no claim that either project is better.
As of 2026-10-29, electron/electron contains 287,116 total lines (224,715 code) across 1,298 files, while tauri-apps/tauri contains 162,926 total lines (112,398 code) across 681 files as of 2026-10-28. electron/electron has about 2.0x the counted code lines of tauri-apps/tauri under the same engine and counting rules. Code size is not code quality: a larger count only means more source material, not a better or worse project.
Not necessarily. SLOC measures size, not complexity, quality, or maintainability. A larger codebase can mean more features, more generated or vendored code, more verbose language idioms, or more tests — none of which imply the code is harder to work with. Use SLOC to gauge the scale of what you'd be reading or maintaining, not as a quality signal for electron/electron, tauri-apps/tauri, or any repository.
Methodology: both counts come from cached OctoCounts reports generated with tokei. electron/electron was counted at ref main (commit 3e2350dc8026) on 2026-10-29; tauri-apps/tauri was counted at ref dev (commit 548a3692f594) on 2026-10-28. See the counting methodology for ignored directories and analysis options.
Yes. This page shows the default branch for each repository. Use the interactive comparison tool to pick any public GitHub repository, branch, tag, or commit SHA for both sides and get a fresh side-by-side report.