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
8 days agoRepository age
11 yearsVersion
v0.17.0License
Apache-2.0Repository
alacritty/alacritty
Last 30 days
Last commit
20 hours agoRepository age
16 yearsLicense
GPL-2.0Repository
gnachman/iterm2
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 66,028 stars compared to 18,212 stars on GitHub. This 3.6x difference suggests Alacritty has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Alacritty has 3,664 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
iTerm 2 is growing faster, adding 125 stars in the last 30 days (+0.7%) against adding 228 stars for Alacritty (+0.3%). 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 8 days ago and iTerm 2 20 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.