When comparing Midori vs Qutebrowser, the Slant community recommends Qutebrowser for most people. In the question“What are the best desktop web browsers?” Qutebrowser is ranked 10th while Midori is ranked 38th.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Available on several distributions
Midori is used as a default choice for a web browser for some distributions (like Elementary OS) and it's available for easy downloading for many other distros through their official repositories.
Pro Very fast
Midori is considerably fast. It starts up in no time and renders pages as fast as many other more well-known browsers.
Incredibly lightweight with very little memory consumption.
Pro Allows using webapps as if they were desktop apps
Midori has a built-in functionality with which you can create web apps that can be launched from the desktop. For example, you can create a web app for the desktop to launch Gmail or YouTube or any other web app that you use.
Pro Useful plugins are built-in
Some very popular and useful plugins are built-in and available out of the box. For example, there's an RSS feed reader plugin and an Adblocker built-in.
Pro Fast and light on resource usage
Pro Vim-style keyboard shortcuts and commands for rapid navigation
With suggestions/auto-complete to reduce the learning curve.
Pro Highly customizable
And quite easy to configure. You can even write your own config.
Con Misbehaves with Google Web Apps
On some distributions Midori may not work very well for Google Web Apps. On openSUSE for example, Midori starts misbehaving when you are going through Google Drive's folder hierarchy.
Con Supports insecure cipher suites
This browser supports RC4 encryption which is known to be insecure compared to other encryptions such as AES.
Con Development stalled
There have been no recent updates. Lags other browsers in supporting modern web standards. Many distributions have replaced it with other browsers
Con Another bloatware as firefox
It is described as a lightweight browser but it is just a bloatware. It crashes sometimes. It is a clone of firefox which is said to be a RAM-eater.
Con Unfamiliar UI
The UI can take a little to getting used to because it's not very conventional or similar to other browsers. For example, it uses a trashcan icon to view recently visited links.
Con Poor adblock in comparision to ublock origin
Con Requires additional support and plugins for video playback
Con Steep learning curve
If you're not a vim user it will take some time to get used to the shortcuts.
Con Software rendering only with Nouveau Drivers
As it is mainly written in Python it's startup is slower than the competition.