Backend Runtime Data v2.5.0 Updated 2026-01-27
Rust
Memory-safe systems programming language
103k N/A (crates.io) Memory-safe N/A (compiled)
81 /100
Quick Verdict
Best For
- Performance-critical backend services
- Systems programming and infrastructure
- WebAssembly and edge computing
- CLI tools and developer tooling
Consider Alternatives If
- Rapid prototyping and MVPs
- Teams without systems programming experience
- Projects with tight deadlines
Top Alternatives
Score Breakdown
6 dimensions evaluated with transparent methodology
Performance
98 −2
Best-in-class performance rivaling C/C++
- Zero-cost abstractions with no runtime overhead
- No garbage collector - predictable latency
- LLVM backend with aggressive optimizations
Why not 100%:
- −1 Compile times can be slow for large projects
- −1 Binary sizes larger than Go
Developer Experience
58 −42
Steep learning curve but excellent tooling once mastered
- Cargo provides excellent package management
- rust-analyzer IDE support is excellent
- Compiler error messages are incredibly helpful
Why not 100%:
- −10 Borrow checker requires mental model shift
- −10 Lifetime annotations can be complex
- −10 Async Rust has additional complexity
Ecosystem
55 −45
Growing ecosystem focused on systems and web
- crates.io hosts 150K+ packages
- Strong async runtime with Tokio
- Web frameworks: Axum, Actix, Rocket
Why not 100%:
- −11 Smaller ecosystem than Node.js/Python
- −11 Fewer enterprise libraries
- −11 Some domains have limited options
Maintainability
88 −12
Strong type system catches bugs at compile time
- Compiler prevents entire classes of bugs
- Six-week release cycle with editions
- Backward compatibility guarantee
Why not 100%:
- −6 Refactoring can require lifetime changes
- −6 Major version upgrades of dependencies can be breaking
Cost Efficiency
95 −5
Lower infrastructure costs due to efficiency
- MIT/Apache dual licensed
- Efficient resource usage reduces cloud costs
- Single binary deployment simplifies ops
Why not 100%:
- −2 Higher developer costs due to learning curve
- −2 Longer development time for initial projects
Compliance
92 −8
Memory safety reduces security vulnerabilities
- Memory safety eliminates buffer overflows
- No null pointer exceptions
- Thread safety guaranteed by compiler
Why not 100%:
- −4 Unsafe blocks require careful review
- −4 FFI boundaries need extra attention
Compare Alternatives
How Rust stacks up against similar technologies
Sources & Methodology
How we calculate these scores: transparent and reproducible
primary
GitHub
Repository activity, stars, contributors, issue resolution time
primary
Crates.io
Rust package downloads, dependencies, version history
secondary
OSV Database
Known vulnerabilities, security advisories, CVE tracking
contextual
Community Signals
Stack Overflow activity, Discord engagement, developer surveys
Data version:
2.5.0 Last updated: 2026-01-27 Confidence: 92%