When comparing w3m vs Konqueror, the Slant community recommends w3m for most people. In the question“What are the best web browsers for UNIX-like systems?” w3m is ranked 25th while Konqueror is ranked 37th. The most important reason people chose w3m is:
Although w3m is primarily a text-based web browser which runs inside the terminal, it supports and renders several elements which other terminal-based browsers cannot like images, tables, tabs or frames.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Support for several elements not found in terminal browsers
Although w3m is primarily a text-based web browser which runs inside the terminal, it supports and renders several elements which other terminal-based browsers cannot like images, tables, tabs or frames.
Pro Available as emacs plugin
W3m can also be downloaded as an emacs plugins to be used as a fast web browser that runs inside emacs.
Pro Amazing file manager integration
Konqueror can also work as a file manager and it does a great job at that. You can view both local or remote files (through FTP, SSH, SFTP, and Samba protocol).
Pro Low footprint in KDE
Konqueror usually has a low footprint when used in KDE because most of the resources needed are already loaded. This makes the startup time and general loading times between commands very fast compared to other browsers in KDE.
Cons
Con Steep learning curve
Being a terminal web browser w3m has a certain learning curve because you need to learn the keystrokes and different commands.
Con Lacks incognito/private mode
Konqueror lacks the option to browse the web in private mode, which is used when you don't want to leave any search history or avoid saving any cookies or cached data.
Con No large extension support
Konqueror is unable to tap into the large collection of Chrome extensions like many other browsers do. So the options to extend Konqueror's functionality are pretty limited.