Learn how Alacritty and iTerm 2 differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these terminal emulators is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
License
Repository

Both Alacritty and iTerm 2 have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Alacritty significantly outpaces iTerm 2 in community adoption with 65,977 stars compared to 18,181 stars on GitHub. This 3.6x difference suggests Alacritty has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Alacritty has 3,647 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
iTerm 2 is growing faster, adding 122 stars in the last 30 days (+0.7%) against adding 238 stars for Alacritty (+0.4%). iTerm 2 is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Alacritty last updated 17 hours ago and iTerm 2 4 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with Bash. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Alacritty uses Rust, GLSL while iTerm 2 leverages JavaScript, CSS, Python, C, Objective-C, Swift, C++, Ruby, MATLAB.
iTerm 2 has been in development longer, starting 16 years ago, compared to Alacritty which began 11 years ago. This 4.9-year head start suggests iTerm 2 may have more mature features and established processes.
The projects use different licenses: Alacritty is licensed under Apache-2.0 while iTerm 2 uses GPL-2.0. Consider the licensing requirements when choosing for your project.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Terminal Emulators.