When comparing Konqueror vs AMP Browser, the Slant community recommends Konqueror for most people. In the question“What are the best desktop web browsers?” Konqueror is ranked 55th while AMP Browser is ranked 59th. The most important reason people chose Konqueror is:
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).
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
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.
Pro Useful
Highlights AMP results in Google Search on desktop.
Pro Ultra fast
Automatically loads AMP (Accelerated Mobile Pages) and MIP (Mobile Instant Pages) web pages whenever possible.
Pro Open source
Based on vanilla Chromium.
Pro Data saving
Saves data using Data Compression Proxy.
Pro Ad blocking
Has a built-in ad blocker.
Cons
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.
Con AMP pages are loaded through Google
All AMP pages are loaded though Google's servers, meaning Google can log your browsing history and theoretically manipulate website contents.