When comparing Midori vs QtWeb, the Slant community recommends QtWeb for most people. In the question“What are the best lightweight web browsers?” QtWeb is ranked 6th while Midori is ranked 11th.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Incredibly lightweight with very little memory consumption.
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.
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 Despite its very small size, it is self-contained: it does not depend on IE
Pro Very small download
Windows: installer ~8MB; portable (zip) ~7.4MB
Pro Very lightweight with minimal system requirements
Pro Windows version available in installer and portable (zip) formats
Pro Available for different operating systems
Windows, Linux, Unix and MacOS X.
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 It's not in active development
Last version (3.8.5) was released on Sep 9, 2013.