When comparing MobaXterm vs hyper, the Slant community recommends MobaXterm for most people. In the question“What are the best SSH clients for Windows?” MobaXterm is ranked 7th while hyper is ranked 22nd. The most important reason people chose MobaXterm is:
MobaXterm can connect to practically anything.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Flexible
MobaXterm can connect to practically anything.
Pro X server support
In case you need X11 forwarding, MobaXterm has an integrated X server.
Pro Full linux subsystem with package manager
And you can install conda for additional package management.
Pro Tabbed or split mode
Multiple terminals can either be in tabs or split horizontally or vertically.
Pro Integral remote file editor
Edit remote files via ssh and sftp
Pro SSH tunnel controls and forwarding UI controls makes it easy
Pro Automatic SFTP
With MobaXterm, there's no fiddling with multiple apps: simply connect and everything is available.
Pro Connection manager
Pro ENV can use Windows PATH
Pro Password vault
Pro Server tools (HTTPD, SSHD, SFTPD, TTFT)
Pro Build in sftp file manager
Manipulate and edit remote files in the file browser.
Pro Integrates with WSL
Integrates perfectly with the Windows Subsystem for Linux. Out of the box it offers a shell to that system.
Pro Supports macro controls (multi commands in single screen)
Pro Cross-platform due to electron browser-based foundation
Although not Windows-friendly. But nobody uses Windows terminal anyway.
Pro Built on electron, supports split panels and plugins
Cons
Con Not completely freeware
If you use MobaXterm at work, they hope you will pay for it. This isn't horrifying, but it's not providing any new features in Linux to warrant the outlay. Its integration with Putty in Windows as an X client may make it worth the funds.
Con Split screen prevents tabbed mode
If you split a screen within a tab, you have to go back to single screen before you can switch to another tab.
Con Can have some performance issues
MobaXterm can have some occasional performance issues. These happen rarely but it's worth mentioning that they exist, especially since this is a paid tool.
Con Made with Electron
It uses a considerable amount of resources, compared to other offerings.
Con Not as cross platform as advertised
Most features only work on Mac OS.
Con Incorrect rendering
Terminal window has visual artifacts.
Con No configuration UI; all options must be set via JSON
Con Still maturing as of December 2016
Folks noticed some issues in the 1.0 release cited here.