Flatpak vs. Snap: Which Universal Linux Package Format is Right for You?

So, you’re standing at a crossroads in the Linux universe. On one side, you have Flatpak. On the other, Snap. Both promise a utopian future: a world without dependency hell, where applications run securely, universally, on any distribution. But as any seasoned sysadmin knows, the devil isn’t just in the details; he’s practically built the server room. The big question is, which devil do you know? Are we trading the chaos of traditional package management for a new, more subtle form of complexity? Or worse, are we trading freedom for convenience?

I’ve spent more than a decade and a half wrestling with systems, from bare-metal servers humming in a data center to sprawling cloud deployments. I’ve seen technologies come and go, each one hailed as the “final solution.” This isn’t just another tech debate for me; it’s about the fundamental principles that govern how we build, distribute, and trust software on our machines. The choice between Flatpak and Snap isn’t just about which app store has the software you want. It’s a choice about philosophy, security architecture, and who ultimately holds the keys to your system.

Trending

Switching to Linux from Windows in 2025: The Complete Guide

In this deep dive, we’re going to tear down these two titans of universal Linux packages. We’re not just looking at the surface. We’re going under the hood to inspect the engine, the chassis, and the steering. By the end, you won’t just have an opinion; you’ll have an informed decision, grounded in technical reality, whether you’re a user who just wants to run applications or a developer trying to ship them. Let’s get our hands dirty.

The Core Philosophy: Two Paths to the Same Mountain Top

Before we can even begin to compare features, we have to understand the ‘why’. Both Flatpak and Snap were born from the same primordial soup of frustration: Linux fragmentation. For decades, developers had to package their app as a .deb for Debian/Ubuntu, an .rpm for Fedora/RHEL, an AUR package for Arch, and so on. It was a nightmare of compiling against different library versions, leading to the infamous “dependency hell.”

Both projects set out to solve this by bundling an application with all its necessary dependencies into a single, portable package. But how they approached this and what they optimized for reveals their fundamentally different worldviews.

Amazon Basics 128 GB Ultra Fast USB 3.1 Flash Drive, Black

• USB 3.1 flash drive with high-speed transmission; store videos, photos, music, and more
• 128 GB storage capacity; can store 32,000 12MP photos or 488 minutes 1080P video recording, for example
• Convenient USB connection

List Price : 16.99

Offer: 16.98

Go to Amazon

Flatpak: A Community-Driven, Desktop-First Toolkit

Flatpak grew out of the freedesktop.org community, with heavy involvement from developers at Red Hat and the GNOME project. Its DNA is deeply rooted in the open-source desktop. Its primary goal was, and largely remains, to make life better for developers of graphical desktop applications and the users who run them.

Think of Flatpak not as a single product, but as a set of open technologies. You have the Flatpak format itself, the Bubblewrap utility for sandboxing, and the concept of “Portals” for secure interaction with the host system. The philosophy is decentralized by design. While Flathub has become the de facto central repository, anyone is free to set up their own “remote.” It’s a federated model, much like Git and GitHub. Git is the technology; GitHub is just the most popular place to use it.

Flatpak’s design prioritizes a clean separation between the OS and its applications. It does this through shared “runtimes”—collections of common libraries (like the GNOME or KDE platform stacks). Apps are then built against these stable runtimes, not the host system’s ever-changing libraries. This is a system designed by desktop developers, for desktop developers.

Snap: The Canonical-Backed, All-Encompassing Vision

Snap, on the other hand, comes from Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu. Its origins are in the “click packages” for the now-defunct Ubuntu Touch mobile OS. This history is crucial because it informed a different set of design goals. Snap was built to be a universal packaging system for everything—from a tiny command-line utility or a background service on an IoT device, to a massive server application, and yes, to a desktop application.

The philosophy here is centralized and product-focused. The Snap technology is inextricably linked to the Snap Store, a centralized, proprietary backend controlled by Canonical. The idea is to provide an Apple-like “App Store” experience: one place to get software, automatic updates, and a consistent security model vetted by a single entity. It’s a pragmatic, top-down approach that prioritizes ease of use, reliability, and control, especially for managing fleets of devices in IoT or server environments.

Where Flatpak feels like a loose federation of open standards, Snap feels like an integrated platform. This isn’t a value judgment—yet. It’s a critical distinction that influences every single technical aspect we’re about to discuss.

The Sandboxing and Security Showdown: A Deep Dive into Flatpak vs Snap

This is where things get really interesting. Both systems promise to confine applications, limiting their access to your personal files and system resources. This is a massive leap forward from traditional packages that run with your full user permissions. But they achieve this confinement in very different ways.

Flatpak’s Security Model: The Power of Portals and Namespaces

Flatpak’s sandbox is built on a foundation of core Linux kernel features, primarily user namespaces. It uses a fantastic little utility called Bubblewrap (bwrap) to create a container for the application at runtime. This container is a new “reality” for the app—it gets its own process tree, its own network interface, and a heavily restricted view of the filesystem.

But a completely isolated app is useless. It can’t open files, print documents, or even display a window. This is where Flatpak’s most elegant innovation comes in: Portals.

Here’s an analogy: Imagine your application is a new intern in a high-security office. In a traditional system, you’d give the intern a keycard with access to every single room. Bad idea. Flatpak’s approach is to give the intern no keycard at all. When the intern needs a file from the filing cabinet, they can’t go get it themselves. They must go to the front desk (the Portal) and ask the trusted receptionist (the desktop environment) to fetch it for them. The receptionist brings up a standard file-picker dialog, you (the user) select the file, and the receptionist hands just that one file to the intern. The intern never even learned where the filing cabinet is.

This is exactly how Portals work for file access, printing, notifications, and more. It’s a system of mediated access that puts the user and the trusted desktop shell in control, not the application. This model gives you incredibly granular control. Using a tool like Flatseal, you can visually see and toggle every single permission an app has, from filesystem access to network sockets.

Snap’s Security Model: AppArmor, Interfaces, and Assertions

Snap takes a different, but equally valid, approach. It leans heavily on Linux Security Modules (LSMs), primarily AppArmor, which is a Mandatory Access Control (MAC) system that has been a part of Ubuntu’s security story for years.

Instead of the Portal’s “ask for permission” model, Snap uses a “declarative permissions” model through Interfaces. You can think of these as plugs and slots. The system provides a series of “slots” (like access to the network, the home directory, or a webcam), and an application package declares which “plugs” it needs to connect to those slots.

When you install a Snap, the snapd daemon reads the application’s declared plugs and, based on security policies and digital signatures from the Snap Store, decides whether to automatically connect them. For example, a web browser’s plug for the `network` slot will likely be connected automatically. A request to access your webcam, however, might require explicit user permission.

This system is powerful and allows for fine-grained rules enforced at the kernel level by AppArmor. The central Snap Store plays a key role here, acting as a gatekeeper. It scans submissions and can grant or deny permissions for certain interfaces. This provides a strong baseline of security, but it’s less flexible from a user’s perspective than Flatpak’s Portal system. You have less direct control to override or tweak these connections post-installation compared to the power a tool like Flatseal gives you for Flatpaks.

It’s also worth mentioning “classic” confinement. Some complex applications, like IDEs or certain developer tools, can’t function in a strict sandbox. Snap provides a “classic” mode which essentially disables most of the confinement. This is a necessary escape hatch, but it’s a significant security trade-off that you need to be aware of when installing a classic snap.

The Great Repository Debate: Centralized vs. Decentralized

How you get your software is just as important as how it runs. This is perhaps the most significant philosophical and practical difference between the two systems.

Flathub: The De Facto Standard in a Federated World

As I mentioned, Flatpak is a technology, not a store. You can add any number of remotes. The command is simple: flatpak remote-add [NAME] [URL]. This is empowering. A developer or company can host their own Flatpak repository for their software, giving them full control over distribution.

In reality, almost everyone uses Flathub. It has become the central, community-curated repository for thousands of applications. It’s managed by the community and supported by donations and sponsorships. This is Flatpak’s greatest strength and a potential weakness.

• Pros: You have choice. You aren’t locked into a single vendor. If you don’t like Flathub’s policies, you can use or create an alternative. This fosters a healthy, open ecosystem.
• Cons: The burden of trust is on you. While Flathub does its best, it’s not the same as a single corporation with a paid security team vetting every single app. You have to trust the packagers of the apps on Flathub, and you have to trust the maintainers of any other remotes you add.

The Snap Store: A Walled Garden for Reliability?

Snap is the polar opposite. There is one Snap Store, and it’s managed by Canonical. The server-side code that runs the store is proprietary. You cannot, in any practical sense, set up your own alternative Snap Store for public software distribution. (There are options for private, on-premise “brand stores,” but that’s an enterprise feature).

This is a highly controversial point in the Linux community. On one hand, it creates a streamlined, reliable experience. You have one place to go, automated security scans, and a single point of accountability. Canonical’s infrastructure also provides features like delta updates (only downloading the bits that have changed), which is incredibly efficient.

• Pros: It’s simple and reliable. One command, snap install [app], searches one store and installs the definitive version. The centralized nature allows for tight quality control and advanced features.
• Cons: It’s a classic case of vendor lock-in. The entire ecosystem is controlled by Canonical. If they decide to change a policy, pull an app, or even shut down the service, the ecosystem is at their mercy. This single point of failure and control is antithetical to the traditional open-source ethos for many people.

Performance and Resource Usage: Unpacking the Overhead

Ah, the issue that launches a thousand forum threads: performance. Both formats introduce overhead compared to native packages. The key is how much, and where.

Startup Times: The Loop Mount Controversy

This is Snap’s biggest and most persistent criticism. Snaps, particularly on their first launch after a boot, can be noticeably slower to start than their Flatpak or native counterparts. I’ve seen this on my own systems, and the user reports are endless.

The technical reason is fundamental to Snap’s design. A snap package is a single, compressed SquashFS filesystem image. When you run a snap, the snapd daemon takes this file, mounts it on a loop device, and sets up the sandbox. This mounting process, especially on slower spinning hard drives, introduces a tangible delay. While subsequent launches are often faster due to caching, that initial “cold start” lag is real.

Flatpak uses a completely different technology called OSTree. You can think of it as “Git for large binary files.” When you install a Flatpak, its files are de-duplicated and stored in an OSTree repository. At install time, the files needed for the application are hard-linked into the correct location. There’s no on-the-fly mounting of a compressed filesystem image at runtime. This approach almost always results in faster application startup times, closer to native performance.

Disk Space: Runtimes vs. Bases and Deduplication

Both systems are clever about saving disk space by sharing common components. Flatpak does this with Runtimes. If you have ten GNOME apps installed, they will all share a single GNOME 45 runtime. This means the common libraries (GTK, GLib, etc.) are only stored once. OSTree’s single-instance, content-addressable storage is also extremely efficient at de-duplicating files both within and between runtimes and applications.

Snaps use a similar concept called Bases. A base is a minimal root filesystem, like core22 which is based on Ubuntu 22.04. Multiple snaps can be built on the same base. Snaps also share a common `core` snap that provides fundamental libraries. While this does save space, I find Flatpak’s more granular runtime system is often slightly more efficient, especially if you have many apps that use the same desktop toolkit.

Where snaps shine, however, is in update efficiency. Because the Snap Store controls distribution, it can calculate and send only the binary difference (a delta) between the version you have and the new one. This can make updates tiny, which is a huge benefit for users on metered connections or for managing IoT devices in the field.

The Developer Experience: Packaging Your Application

For end-users, this might seem less important, but it directly affects the quantity and quality of applications available in each format.

Packaging for Flatpak: Manifests and Flatpak-Builder

To package a Flatpak, you create a YAML or JSON manifest file. This file is a recipe that declaratively lists your app’s metadata, the runtime it depends on, and a list of modules to build. These modules are typically the source code for your app and all of its dependencies.

The flatpak-builder tool then takes this manifest and builds everything from source in a clean, isolated environment. This guarantees a reproducible build, which is a huge win. However, it can also be a significant undertaking. You have to find and list every single dependency your app uses. For a simple app, it’s easy. For a complex one with dozens of dependencies, creating the initial manifest can be a lot of work.

Packaging for Snap: The `snapcraft.yaml` File

Snaps are configured with a `snapcraft.yaml` file. This file is also declarative, defining metadata, confinement levels, and the plugs/slots for security.

The key difference is in how the application is built. Snapcraft has a powerful system of `parts` and `plugins`. You can define a part that pulls in pre-built .deb packages, or use a plugin for a specific language (like `python`, `go`, or `rust`) that knows how to build that type of project. This can make packaging an existing application, especially one that already has Debian packages, significantly faster and easier than creating a Flatpak manifest from scratch.

The trade-off is that this process can feel a bit more like a “black box” than Flatpak’s “build everything from source” purity. It prioritizes pragmatism and speed for the developer over ideological consistency.

Conclusion: Making an Informed Choice in the Flatpak vs Snap Debate

We’ve been deep in the trenches, and it’s time to surface. As you can see, there is no simple answer to “which is better?” They are different tools, built with different philosophies, to solve similar problems. The right choice depends entirely on your priorities.

Let’s summarize the showdown in a table:

So, Should I Use Flatpak or Snap?

Here’s my advice, as a systems architect who values both performance and principle:

For most Linux Desktop Users: Start with Flatpak. The performance is generally better, the Flathub app selection is enormous, and the federated, open-source nature of the ecosystem aligns better with the traditional spirit of Linux. Tools like Flatseal give you unparalleled control over your application permissions. It feels like a system built with the user’s power and freedom in mind.

If you are a dedicated Ubuntu user: Snaps are deeply integrated into your OS and offer a seamless experience for many applications, especially those provided by Canonical or other major software vendors. If the slower startup times don’t bother you and you value the convenience of a single, curated store, the Snap ecosystem will serve you well.

For Application Developers: If you are building a classic, open-source desktop application, targeting Flathub is almost mandatory. It’s where the community of engaged desktop Linux users is. If you’re a commercial entity targeting the massive Ubuntu user base, or if your application needs to span from the desktop to cloud servers and IoT devices, Snapcraft’s integrated platform and powerful tooling are incredibly compelling.

Ultimately, the ongoing flatpak vs snap competition has been a net positive for the Linux ecosystem. It has forced innovation and has largely solved the age-old problem of application distribution. You don’t even have to choose; on many systems, you can run both. But now you understand the trade-offs you’re making with every `flatpak install` or `snap install` command you type.

What’s your take? Have you run into performance issues with Snaps, or do you find the convenience is worth it? Do you trust the federated model of Flathub, or do you prefer Canonical’s walled garden? Let me know your experiences and thoughts in the comments below. The real-world data is what matters most.