Snap vs Flatpak: Which Linux packaging solution is right for you?

Comparing sandboxing, storage efficiency, distribution support, and ecosystem differences.

The evolution of software installation on Linux began with compiling software from compressed packages known as tarballs. Red Hat developed the package managers yum and later dnf, while Debian introduced apt. Other distributions, such as Arch, use pacman, and SUSE employs Zypper and YaST.

Although these package managers have significantly improved the safety and precision of software distribution, challenges still arise. Dependencies from one application can conflict with those of another, potentially breaking your system. Additionally, developers must provide .deb files for Debian-based systems, rpm files for RHEL/Fedora/SUSE, and AUR packages for Arch, adding complexity to the distribution process.

What are Snap and Flatpak? Understanding universal Linux packages

Snap and Flatpak represent a new approach to Linux software distribution. Both technologies aim to solve the dependency conflict problem by bundling applications with everything they need to run. This “universal package” approach means developers can create one package that works across multiple Linux distributions, and users don’t have to worry about breaking their system with conflicting dependencies.

Both Snap and Flatpak use sandboxing to isolate applications from the rest of your system, providing better security and stability. However, they differ in their design philosophy, backing organizations, and implementation details.

Read more: How to make your first meaningful open source contribution

Snap packages: How Canonical’s solution works

Snap was developed by Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu. Snap packages encapsulate an application and all its dependencies into a single unit, ensuring consistent performance across different Linux distributions. Developers can create and distribute their applications without worrying about specific system configurations or conflicting dependencies.

Technical details. Snap supports a variety of architectures, including AMD64, ARM64, ARMHF, i386, RISC-V, and others. Snap software is open source under a GPL v3.0 license. The Snap Store hosts thousands of packages, though not all packages are open source. Some, like Opera browser, Slack, and Spotify, are proprietary applications.

Distribution support. Snap works on any distribution that installs snapd, the underlying daemon that manages Snap packages. It’s packaged for all major Linux families, including Debian-based, Fedora-based, Arch-based, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Some distributions like Ubuntu ship with Snap preinstalled. Others require manual configuration. OpenSUSE does not officially support Snap.

Flatpak: Red Hat’s approach to application sandboxing

Flatpak was developed by Alexander Larsson, who works at Red Hat. Like Snap, Flatpak applications are sandboxed and can run on a variety of Linux systems. However, Flatpak emphasizes a more decentralized approach to application distribution.

How Flatpak differs. Flatpak applications run in a sandboxed environment with granular permission controls, allowing users to manage how applications interact with the system and each other. Flatpak uses “runtimes,” which enable shared libraries to be utilized across different applications, potentially reducing storage usage compared to Snap’s approach of bundling everything independently.

Licensing and ecosystem. Flatpak is open source with an LGPL license. Flathub, the primary Flatpak repository, offers thousands of applications. Several factors have influenced Flathub’s growth: broader distribution support, developer adoption, a verified apps program, and Steam Deck integration.

Distribution support. Flatpak has wide support across major Linux distributions, including Fedora, Debian, Linux Mint, Pop!_OS, Arch Linux, OpenSUSE, NixOS, CentOS, and Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Snap vs Flatpak: 4 key differences and distribution support

While both technologies solve similar problems, they differ in philosophy and implementation:

Sandboxing approach. Snap uses AppArmor for security confinement, while Flatpak uses a combination of namespaces, seccomp, and bubblewrap for sandboxing. Flatpak offers more granular permission controls that users can adjust.

Storage efficiency. Flatpak’s runtime system allows multiple applications to share common libraries, potentially using less disk space. Snap packages include all dependencies, which can lead to larger installations but ensures complete independence.

Distribution adoption. Flatpak enjoys broader native support across distributions, while Snap requires snapd installation on most non-Ubuntu systems. Ubuntu and its derivatives ship with Snap by default.

Ecosystem. Both have thriving application repositories. Snap Store is centralized and controlled by Canonical, while Flatpak’s ecosystem is more decentralized with Flathub as the primary (but not only) repository.

Read more: How to add free AI code review to your open source project

Which one should you use?

The choice between Snap and Flatpak often depends on your distribution and the applications you need. Many Linux users install both to access the widest range of software. Ubuntu users will find Snap readily available, while Fedora and many other distributions favor Flatpak by default.

Both technologies represent significant advancements in Linux software distribution, offering developers easier packaging and users more reliable installations. As the Linux ecosystem continues to evolve, Snap and Flatpak will likely coexist, each serving different parts of the community and contributing to a more versatile and secure software environment.

More from We Love Open Source

• 5 forces driving DevOps and AI in 2026
• How we migrated a 20-year-old open source project
• How to make your first meaningful open source contribution
• The AI slop problem threatening open source maintainers
• How to add free AI code review to your open source project

This article is adapted from “Exploring Snap and Flatpak: Innovations in Linux Application Deployment” by Don Watkins, and is republished with permission from the author.