When developing cross-platform applications with embedded web content, choosing the right web rendering framework is crucial. Developers often face a trade-off between lightweight integration and full-featured browser capabilities. Two popular options are webview.h, a minimalist, easy-to-use wrapper around native webviews, and CEF (Chromium Embedded Framework), which provides a complete Chromium-based browser engine.
webview.h offers simplicity and small binary size by leveraging the system’s native web rendering engines, making it ideal for lightweight dashboards or simple UI components. In contrast, CEF delivers powerful, consistent Chromium rendering across platforms, suited for complex web applications requiring advanced features and customization.
Understanding these differences helps align your technology choice with project requirements, optimizing both development effort and UX.
Scenario 1 : Using webview.h
This will default to different rendering engines on different OS’s/platforms
| Feature | Windows (Edge WebView2) | Linux (WebKitGTK) | macOS (WKWebView) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rendering Engine | Edge WebView2 (or IE/Trident fallback) | WebKitGTK | WebKit (WKWebView) |
| Async JS Eval (with return) | ✅ Yes (eval + bind) | ✅ Yes (eval + bind) | ✅ Yes (eval + bind) |
| Serve From Folder (HTTP) | ✅ Yes via SetVirtualHostNameToFolderMapping | ❌ No built-in serving | ❌ No built-in serving |
| Serve From Folder (HTTPS) | ✅ Yes (same API, serves over HTTPS) | ❌ No built-in HTTPS | ❌ No built-in HTTPS |
| History (canGoBack/canGoForward) | ✅ Yes via WebView2 API | ✅ Yes via WebKitGTK API | ✅ Yes via WKWebView API |
Scenario 2: Using CEF
| Feature | Windows (Chromium/CEF) | Linux (Chromium/CEF) | macOS (Chromium/CEF) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rendering Engine | Chromium (Blink) | Chromium (Blink) | Chromium (Blink) |
| Async JS Eval (with return) | ✅ Yes (ExecuteJavaScript, Promise) | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes |
| Serve From Folder (HTTP) | ❌ No built-in serving | ❌ No built-in serving | ❌ No built-in serving |
| Serve From Folder (HTTPS) | ❌ No built-in serving | ❌ No built-in serving | ❌ No built-in serving |
| History (canGoBack/canGoForward) | ✅ Yes (CanGoBack, GoBack) | ✅ Yes | ✅ Yes |
So which scenario to choose ?
| Feature / Aspect | Scenario 1: webview.h | Scenario 2: CEF (Chromium Embedded Framework) |
|---|---|---|
| Rendering Engine | OS-native webview (Edge/IE, WebKit, WebKitGTK) | Full Chromium |
| Binary Size | Tiny (just your app + system libraries) | Large (~100–300 MB with resources) |
| API Complexity | Very simple (single-header C API) | Complex (multi-process, many classes) |
| Cross-platform | Yes (Windows, macOS, Linux) | Yes (Windows, macOS, Linux) |
| Performance | Varies by platform (older engines possible) | High, modern Chromium engine |
| Customizability | Limited (basic API) | Very high (custom schemes, resource handlers) |
| Dependencies | Relies on system webview runtime | Ship Chromium binaries and resources |
| Serve from a folder | ❌ Not directly supported | ✅ Supported (custom schemes, file handlers) |
| Use Case | Lightweight UI embedding, dashboards | Full-featured apps, advanced web apps |
| Distribution | Small binaries, no Chromium to bundle | Large package to ship |
| Example Projects | Simple GUI apps embedding HTML | Electron-like apps, custom browsers |
Key considerations include API complexity, performance, customization, and deployment size. Notably, CEF supports serving web content from local folders or custom schemes, a feature missing in webview.h