Snap vs Flatpak: Ultimate Guide for 2025

Choosing between Snap and Flatpak for Linux apps

Page content

Universal package managers have transformed Linux software distribution, making cross-distribution compatibility a reality. Snap and Flatpak emerged as the leading solutions, each bringing distinct philosophies to solving dependency hell and distribution fragmentation.

flatpacks

Understanding Universal Package Formats

Traditional Linux package management relied on distribution-specific formats—DEBs for Debian/Ubuntu, RPMs for Fedora/RHEL, and various others. For Ubuntu users, the APT and dpkg package management system has been the standard approach. This fragmentation created challenges for developers who needed to maintain multiple package versions and for users wanting software not available in their distribution’s repositories.

Universal package formats address these issues by bundling applications with their dependencies in self-contained units that work across distributions. Both Snap and Flatpak achieve this goal but through fundamentally different architectural approaches.

What is Snap?

Developed by Canonical in 2014, Snap packages (called “snaps”) are compressed, read-only SquashFS filesystems managed by the snapd daemon. Each snap includes all necessary dependencies, ensuring applications run identically regardless of the underlying distribution. Which is faster, Snap or Flatpak? Performance comparisons show that Snap’s architecture can lead to slower startup times because the compressed filesystem must be mounted before the application launches.

The Snap ecosystem centers around the Snap Store, a centralized repository controlled exclusively by Canonical. This centralization simplifies the user experience—there’s one official source for all snap packages—but also concentrates control in Canonical’s hands.

What is Flatpak?

Originating from the GNOME community and officially released in 2016, Flatpak takes a different approach. Instead of bundling every dependency, Flatpak uses shared runtimes—common sets of libraries and frameworks (like Freedesktop SDK, GNOME, or KDE) that multiple applications can share. This architecture reduces redundancy and storage requirements.

Flatpak’s decentralized model allows anyone to host repositories. Flathub has emerged as the de facto standard repository, but developers can maintain their own repos. This decentralization promotes a diverse ecosystem and prevents vendor lock-in.

Architecture and Package Design

The architectural differences between Snap and Flatpak significantly impact performance, storage, and maintenance.

Snap’s Monolithic Approach

Snap packages include everything an application needs to run. When you install a snap, you get a complete, isolated environment:

  • SquashFS filesystem: Packages are compressed and mounted as read-only filesystems
  • Complete dependency bundling: Every library and dependency is included
  • Unified updates: The entire package updates as one unit
  • Channel-based distribution: Developers can maintain stable, candidate, beta, and edge channels

This approach guarantees consistency but increases storage requirements. Multiple snaps might include identical libraries, leading to duplication. The mounting process also affects startup performance—applications can take longer to launch compared to native packages.

Flatpak’s Runtime-Based Architecture

Flatpak’s shared runtime model optimizes resource usage:

  • Shared runtimes: Common libraries are installed once and shared across applications
  • OSTree technology: Efficient storage and updates using object-based versioning
  • Selective dependency bundling: Applications include only unique dependencies
  • Portal system: Controlled access to system resources through well-defined APIs

This architecture explains why Flatpak typically offers faster startup times and smaller package sizes. Applications share runtimes, reducing redundancy. However, managing multiple runtime versions requires careful coordination.

Security and Sandboxing

Both systems prioritize application isolation, but their security implementations differ in important ways. Is Flatpak more secure than Snap? The answer depends on your distribution and security requirements.

Snap’s Security Model

Snap employs a multi-layered security approach:

  • AppArmor profiles: Mandatory Access Control (MAC) confines applications
  • Seccomp filters: Restricts system call access
  • Device cgroups: Controls hardware access
  • Interfaces system: Granular permission model for resource access

Snap’s reliance on AppArmor creates challenges on distributions using SELinux (like Fedora and RHEL) or other security frameworks. This distribution-specific dependency limits Snap’s true “universal” nature.

Applications declare required interfaces (like network, home, or camera), and users or administrators grant these permissions. The snapd daemon enforces these restrictions at runtime.

Flatpak’s Security Approach

Flatpak implements a distribution-agnostic sandboxing strategy:

  • Linux namespaces: Isolates processes, mount points, and networking
  • Seccomp filters: Blocks dangerous system calls
  • User namespaces: Provides unprivileged containerization
  • Portal system: Mediated access through D-Bus interfaces

The portal system is particularly elegant. Instead of granting broad filesystem access, applications request specific operations (like “open file”) through portals. The user’s desktop environment mediates these requests, showing native file chooser dialogs and maintaining security without breaking user experience.

Can I use both Snap and Flatpak on the same system? Yes, and you might choose different formats based on security requirements. For sensitive applications, Flatpak’s distribution-agnostic approach may be preferable.

Performance Comparison

Performance characteristics influence user experience, especially on older hardware or resource-constrained systems.

Startup Time and Resource Usage

Flatpak generally delivers better startup performance:

  • Shared libraries: Already loaded in memory when multiple Flatpak apps run
  • Efficient mounting: Less overhead compared to SquashFS mounting
  • Runtime caching: Frequently used runtimes remain in cache

Snap packages face performance challenges:

  • Mounting overhead: SquashFS filesystem must be mounted before launch
  • Compression decompression: CPU cycles required for decompression
  • Snap daemon: Background service snapd consumes system resources

Real-world tests show Flatpak applications launching 20-40% faster than equivalent Snaps, though actual performance varies by application complexity and system configuration.

Storage Efficiency

Storage considerations matter for users with limited disk space:

Flatpak advantages:

  • Shared runtimes reduce duplication
  • Delta updates download only changed files
  • Efficient deduplication through OSTree

Snap disadvantages:

  • Each package includes full dependencies
  • Multiple packages duplicate common libraries
  • Larger individual package sizes

A typical Flatpak runtime (around 300-500MB) supports multiple applications. Equivalent Snap packages might use 100-200MB each, duplicating shared libraries across installations.

Distribution Model and Ecosystem

The distribution philosophy differs significantly between the two systems, affecting availability and developer relationships.

Snap’s Centralized Model

Canonical maintains tight control over the Snap ecosystem:

  • Single store: Snap Store is the only official repository
  • Canonical backend: Proprietary infrastructure processes packages
  • Account requirements: Publishers need Canonical-approved accounts
  • Automatic promotion: Ubuntu ships with Snap pre-installed

Are Snap packages truly open source? While snapd is open source, the store backend isn’t. This creates concerns about vendor lock-in and long-term ecosystem health. If Canonical changes strategy, the entire Snap ecosystem could be affected.

Which distributions support Flatpak vs Snap by default? Ubuntu strongly favors Snap, even replacing traditional DEBs with Snaps for applications like Firefox and Chromium. This strategy has proven controversial among users who prefer traditional package management.

Flatpak’s Decentralized Approach

Flatpak embraces openness and community involvement:

  • Multiple repositories: Flathub, distributor repos, and self-hosted options
  • Open infrastructure: Anyone can run a Flatpak repository
  • Broad distribution support: Most non-Ubuntu distributions prefer Flatpak
  • Community governance: Development involves multiple stakeholders

Flathub has become the central hub for Flatpak applications, but it’s community-run, not controlled by a single vendor. Developers can easily publish to Flathub or maintain their own repositories for enterprise or specialized needs.

Many distributions (Fedora, Linux Mint, Pop!_OS, Manjaro, and others) ship with Flatpak by default or make it easily available. This broad support reflects community preference for open, decentralized solutions.

Update Management

Application updates impact security, features, and system maintenance burden.

Snap’s Automatic Updates

Do Snap or Flatpak applications update automatically? Snap takes an opinionated approach:

  • Automatic by default: Applications update without user intervention
  • Background updates: snapd checks and installs updates regularly
  • Refresh hold: Users can temporarily defer updates
  • Channel switching: Switch between stable, beta, and edge releases

This automatic approach ensures users run current software versions but removes user control. Some users find this frustrating, especially when updates break workflows or change UI unexpectedly.

Flatpak’s User-Controlled Updates

Flatpak empowers users to control update timing:

  • Manual updates: Users initiate updates through software centers or CLI
  • Update notifications: Desktop integration alerts users to available updates
  • Selective updates: Update individual applications as needed
  • Runtime management: Control when shared runtimes update

This approach requires more user involvement but prevents surprise changes. Power users appreciate the control, while casual users benefit from software center integration that makes updates simple when desired.

Use Cases and Recommendations

Choosing between Snap and Flatpak depends on your specific needs, distribution, and priorities.

When Snap Makes Sense

Choose Snap if you:

  • Use Ubuntu: Native integration and official support
  • Want automatic updates: Hands-off maintenance approach
  • Need server applications: Snap supports headless server tools
  • Prefer centralization: Single source for all packages
  • Require IoT support: Snap works on embedded systems and IoT devices

Snap’s strength lies in Canonical’s ecosystem. If you’re committed to Ubuntu and appreciate automatic maintenance, Snap provides a polished experience.

When Flatpak is Better

Choose Flatpak if you:

  • Use non-Ubuntu distributions: Broader compatibility
  • Prioritize performance: Faster startup and efficient storage
  • Value open source: Fully open infrastructure
  • Want control: Manual update management
  • Need desktop applications: Excellent GUI app support
  • Avoid vendor lock-in: Decentralized ecosystem

Flatpak’s distribution-agnostic approach, better performance, and open ecosystem make it the preferred choice for many Linux users outside the Ubuntu ecosystem.

Practical Installation and Usage

Both systems are straightforward to install and use, though the specifics vary by distribution.

Installing and Using Snap

On Ubuntu and derivatives, Snap comes pre-installed. For a comprehensive guide to Snap commands, channels, confinement, and troubleshooting, see our Snap Package Manager Cheatsheet. On other distributions:

# Debian/Ubuntu
sudo apt install snapd

# Fedora
sudo dnf install snapd
sudo ln -s /var/lib/snapd/snap /snap

# Arch Linux
sudo pacman -S snapd
sudo systemctl enable --now snapd.socket

Basic Snap commands:

# Search for packages
snap find firefox

# Install an application
sudo snap install firefox

# List installed snaps
snap list

# Update all snaps
sudo snap refresh

# Remove a snap
sudo snap remove firefox

Installing and Using Flatpak

Most non-Ubuntu distributions include Flatpak by default. For detailed instructions on installing, managing, and troubleshooting Flatpak applications, including sandboxing and permissions, refer to our Flatpak Cheatsheet. If not:

# Debian/Ubuntu
sudo apt install flatpak

# Fedora (pre-installed)
# No action needed

# Arch Linux
sudo pacman -S flatpak

Add Flathub repository:

flatpak remote-add --if-not-exists flathub https://flathub.org/repo/flathub.flatpakrepo

Basic Flatpak commands:

# Search for applications
flatpak search firefox

# Install an application
flatpak install flathub org.mozilla.firefox

# List installed applications
flatpak list

# Update all applications
flatpak update

# Remove an application
flatpak uninstall org.mozilla.firefox

Making Your Choice

The Snap vs Flatpak debate doesn’t have a universal winner—context matters. Your distribution choice often determines which system works best. Ubuntu users get exceptional Snap integration, while users of Fedora, Arch, or other distributions typically enjoy better Flatpak experiences.

Performance considerations favor Flatpak for desktop applications, with faster startup times and efficient storage use. Security implementations differ but both provide solid sandboxing. Flatpak’s distribution-agnostic approach gives it an edge on diverse systems.

The philosophical question matters too. Open source advocates often prefer Flatpak’s fully open ecosystem over Snap’s proprietary backend. Decentralization vs. centralization reflects different visions for Linux software distribution.

Can I use both Snap and Flatpak on the same system? Absolutely, and many users do exactly that. Install both, then choose the format offering the best experience for each specific application. Firefox might run better as a Flatpak on Fedora, while a specific development tool might only be available as a Snap.

The universal package format revolution continues evolving. Both Snap and Flatpak push Linux toward better cross-distribution compatibility, easier software installation, and improved security. Understanding their differences helps you make informed choices for your workflow.