Snap vs Flatpak: Full Comparison for Linux Users

Introduction

Snap and Flatpak both showed up to solve the same problem. Traditional package managers like APT tie an application's version to your distro's release cycle, and packaging the same app consistently across different distros is a mess. Both Snap and Flatpak fix this by bundling an app with its dependencies and sandboxing it - running it in an isolated environment - away from the rest of the system. But they come from different vendors, use different backend technology, and behave differently enough in daily use that picking one over the other has real consequences.

Snap is developed by Canonical and ships by default on Ubuntu. Flatpak is developed by the broader Linux desktop community, backed heavily by Red Hat and the Flathub project, and is the default or preferred format on Fedora and increasingly on other distros. If you've ever wondered why an app launches slower right after a reboot, or why one software center shows different apps than another, the Snap vs Flatpak divide is usually the reason. (If you're coming from the traditional .deb/APT side of things instead, see how Snap compares to .deb and how Flatpak compares to APT.)

Quick answer: On Ubuntu, Snap is the path of least resistance - it's preinstalled and updates automatically. On Fedora and most other distros, Flatpak is the default and generally starts faster. Both are sandboxed (apps run isolated from the rest of your system), and most desktops end up using a mix of both.

Setup

Installing Snap

Snap comes preinstalled on Ubuntu. On other distros:

sudo apt install snapd        # Debian/Ubuntu-based
sudo dnf install snapd        # Fedora

Installing and running a Snap:

sudo snap install <package-name>
snap run <package-name>

Installing Flatpak

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

Installing and running a Flatpak:

flatpak install flathub org.gimp.GIMP
flatpak run org.gimp.GIMP

Practical Examples

Installing the same app both ways - VS Code:

sudo snap install code --classic
flatpak install flathub com.visualstudio.code

Note the --classic flag on the Snap install. Some Snaps require "classic confinement," which disables sandboxing entirely for apps that need full system access - an IDE that needs to run arbitrary user code and shell commands, for example. Flatpak has no commonly used equivalent escape hatch. Its sandboxing stays on, with specific permissions granted individually instead.

Checking what's installed:

snap list
flatpak list

Updating:

sudo snap refresh      # Snap auto-updates by default in the background too
flatpak update

Checking startup delay:

Launch a fresh Snap install right after a reboot and you'll often notice a few extra seconds before it opens. That delay is Snap's compressed disk image (called SquashFS) being mounted. Flatpak apps typically start closer to native speed, since their files aren't compressed the same way.

Common Mistakes

• Assuming Snap and Flatpak share a backend. They don't. Snap uses SquashFS-backed, read-only mounted packages with AppArmor confinement (a Linux security system that restricts what an app can do). Flatpak uses OSTree-based repositories with Bubblewrap sandboxing (a lightweight sandboxing tool). They're not interchangeable formats with different names - the underlying architecture is genuinely different.

• Not realizing Snap depends on a single vendor's infrastructure. The Snap Store is run and controlled by Canonical. There's no equivalent to Flathub's more open, community-governed model. This matters if you care about where your software supply chain comes from.

• Ignoring --classic confinement. Installing a Snap with --classic disables its sandbox entirely. If you assumed all Snaps are sandboxed the same way Flatpaks are, this is where that assumption breaks.

• Blaming "Linux is slow" on general system performance. It's often actually Snap's mount-on-launch behavior for infrequently used apps - a known, documented trade-off, not a system fault.

• Forgetting Snap ships pre-installed on Ubuntu. This leads people to wonder why apt install flatpak alone doesn't give access to Snap Store apps, or vice versa. They're separate ecosystems with separate CLIs.

Benefits

Snap benefits:

• Preinstalled and deeply integrated on Ubuntu and derivatives

• Automatic background updates by default, no manual step required

• Works across both desktop and server/IoT contexts (Snap was designed with embedded devices in mind too)

• Single unified store with strong version-channel support (stable/candidate/beta/edge)

Flatpak benefits:

• More open governance - Flathub is community-run, not tied to one company's store

• Sandboxing is consistent - no broad --classic-style bypass in typical desktop use

• Generally faster app startup, since packages aren't compressed/mounted the same way

• Preferred default on Fedora, elementary OS, and other non-Ubuntu-family distros - more "distro-neutral" in practice

Comparison at a Glance

For a broader view of where these fit against traditional .deb/APT packages, see our Flatpak vs APT comparison.

Conclusion

Snap and Flatpak solve the same underlying problem: sandboxed, distro-independent app packaging. But they differ in governance, backend technology, and default behavior. If you're on Ubuntu and want the path of least resistance with automatic updates, Snap is already there waiting. If you care about more open governance, marginally faster startup times, or you're on Fedora or another non-Ubuntu distro, Flatpak is usually the better default.

Neither choice is permanent or exclusive - most desktops run a mix of both alongside native APT/DNF packages, picking whichever format gets a specific app to you fastest and with the fewest surprises.

Related Reading

• Flatpak vs APT: Which Should You Use on Linux?

• Snap vs .deb: What's the Difference?

• deb vs APT vs Snap vs Flatpak vs AppImage in Linux

• AppImage vs .deb: Differences, Use Cases, Pros & Cons

• APT vs Snap: Differences and Use Cases