When comparing BitTorrent vs Rtorrent, the Slant community recommends Rtorrent for most people. In the question“What are the best Torrent clients?” Rtorrent is ranked 7th while BitTorrent is ranked 16th.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Clean and easy to navigate user interface
A clean, visually-appealing interface that’s incredibly simple to navigate and cuts down on clutter by allowing unwanted elements to be hidden.
BitTorrent covers basics such as Prioritization, Selective Downloading, DHT, PEX, LPD and Magnet URIs as well as Broadcatching, Sequential downloading and Search. It includes MSE/PE for security. It has graphical and web interfaces. Has UPnP, NAT-PMP, NAT traversal for automatic router configuration. Has UDP tracker and µTP data transfer protocol support. Even covers IPv6, web seeding, Embedded tracker, Super-seeding and proxy servers. And it auto-updates.
Pro Easy to make your own skin
Pro Additional features with the purchase of BitTorrent Pro
If you pay $19.99, you will get features such as removal of advertisements and added support for an internal HD media player.
Pro CLI interface
Pro No extraneous functions
Torrent is a CLEAN client. Meaning there’s no search engine, tools, or other things to bloat the program.
Pro Reasonable feature set
rTorrent covers basics such as Prioritization, Selective Downloading, DHT, PEX and Magnet URIs. It includes MSE/PE for security. It has graphical and command line interfaces. Has UDP tracker and µTP data transfer protocol support. Even covers Super-seeding.
Pro Supports thousands of torrents easily
Pro RUTorrent is a great web interface for RTorrent
No source code is publicly available. As such there's no way to independently check what security and privacy features are implemented and how as well as whether there's any malicious code or not.
Con Data Leech
Uses way too much background data, while task manager and bittorrent up on the foreground and Bittorrent showing a combined 300kb/s up/download avg on the torrents & TaskManager showed it was actually using an avg of 1000kb/s. There is no way it should be using this amount, and makes one wonder what it's up to.
Con No tracker exchange
Tracker exchange functionality allows peers to exchange information about trackers of a given file. It is another way of ensuring that the file is downloaded from the optimal source. BitTorrent lacks this functionality.
Con No IPv6 support
Con Requires manual router configuration
The client lacks support UPnP, NAT-PMP or NAT traversal for automatic router configuration.
Con Files can't be downloaded sequentially
Con No embedded tracker
An embedded tracker allows turning the client into a server offering an easy way of sharing files with others. rTorrent lacks embedded tracker support so another method of sharing or different client has to be used to share files.
Con No proxy server support
Con Lacks µTP transfer protocol support
Con No tracker exchange
Tracker exchange functionality allows peers to exchange information about trackers of a given file. It is another way of ensuring that the file is downloaded from the optimal source. rTorrent lacks this functionality.
Con No search
Built-in search engines allow finding torrents to download right from withing the torrent client. rTorrent lacks such functionality.
Con No web seeding
Web seeding support allows downloading file parts from an HTTP source alongside the swarm. It's usually used for long-term seeding and easing some of the load on web hosts that supply direct downloads by offering a BitTorrent download as an alternative while still ensuring that the file is always available in its entirety regardless of the swarm. rTorrent lacks this functionality.