iTerm vs rxvt-unicode

Compare features, pricing, and capabilities to find which solution is best for your needs.

iTerm icon

iTerm

iTerm2 is a powerful and highly customizable replacement for the macOS Terminal application, designed for users who demand more control and functionality from their command-line interface. by iTerm Project

Open Source
Platforms: Mac OS X
Screenshots:
VS
rxvt-unicode icon

rxvt-unicode

rxvt-unicode, often abbreviated as urxvt, is a highly customizable and lightweight terminal emulator known for its performance and extensive feature set provided through plugins. It's a fork of the original rxvt and is a popular choice for users seeking a fast and highly configurable command-line interface.

Open Source
Platforms: Mac OS X Linux

Comparison Summary

iTerm and rxvt-unicode are both powerful solutions in their space. iTerm offers iterm2 is a powerful and highly customizable replacement for the macos terminal application, designed for users who demand more control and functionality from their command-line interface., while rxvt-unicode provides rxvt-unicode, often abbreviated as urxvt, is a highly customizable and lightweight terminal emulator known for its performance and extensive feature set provided through plugins. it's a fork of the original rxvt and is a popular choice for users seeking a fast and highly configurable command-line interface.. Compare their features and pricing to find the best match for your needs.

Pros & Cons Comparison

iTerm

iTerm

Analysis & Comparison

Advantages

Extensive customization options for appearance and behavior.
Powerful features like split panes and triggers enhance productivity.
Active development and strong community support.
GPU acceleration provides smooth performance.
Free and open source.

Limitations

Initial setup and configuration can be complex due to the vast number of options.
Some advanced features may require a learning curve.
rxvt-unicode

rxvt-unicode

Analysis & Comparison

Advantages

Extremely lightweight and fast startup time.
Highly customizable through configuration files and plugins.
Powerful plugin system for extending functionality.
Efficient resource usage.
Excellent responsiveness for command-line interaction.

Limitations

Text-based configuration can have a learning curve.
Default appearance is basic; visual customization requires effort.
Requires manual effort to find and configure desired plugins.

Compare with Others

Explore more comparisons and alternatives

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare
Advertisement

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare