BitTorrent vs Flud
When comparing BitTorrent vs Flud, the Slant community recommends Flud for most people. In the question“What is the best Torrent app for Android?” Flud is ranked 1st while BitTorrent is ranked 4th.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Full-featured
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 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.
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 Encryption, IP filtering, and proxy support
Pro Top of the line UI
Flud uses Holo UI, so everything runs smoothly and looks great.
Pro Can be run in the background
Includes "keep running in background" option that can be accessed from the settings menu.
Cons
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 Proprietary
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.