When comparing Chocolatey vs Scoop, the Slant community recommends Scoop for most people. In the question“What are the best Windows package managers?” Scoop is ranked 1st while Chocolatey is ranked 2nd. The most important reason people chose Scoop is:
Github repo can be found [here](https://github.com/lukesampson/scoop).
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Large number of applications/utilities available
Chocolatey has a massive community package repository of installs (more than 4,000 packages), and its open nature allows everyone to contribute more as needed.
Pro No crapware
Installs silently without crapware.
Pro Upgrade all software with one command
choco upgrade all is like Windows Update for all of your 3rd party software. ... or for the more succinct command use 'cup' !!
You can put Chocolatey install commands into your powershell scripts.
Pro Easy to use
Just open powershell and type
choco install firefox to install Firefox, or
choco install java to install Java.
Pro Straightforward install process
To install Chocolatey simply copy the text from their site and paste it into either cmd.exe or powershell.
Pro Downloaded files are verified by checksums
Chocolatey requires checksums by default for files downloaded over non-secure locations and highly recommends it for HTTPS/SSL locations. It is moving towards requiring checkums by default for downloading from secure locations.
Pro Free and open source
It's licensed under Apache License 2.0 with source code available on GitHub.
Pro Manages the entire software lifecycle
From install to upgrade to uninstall, Chocolatey manages the whole process.
Pro Decentralized package sources
Packages can be installed from multiple sources, including private sources.
Pro GUI available
There's a package called ChocolateyGUI that can be installed and lets you use Chocolatey with a UI frontend.
Pro Builds on technologies you know
Unattended installation and PowerShell.
Pro Support and features available for organizations
There is a business edition available for organizations that need more support. The business edition also includes a Package Synchronizer, Package Internalizer, Package Builder, and a host of other features.
Pro Can be extended with PowerShell
Chocolatey allows installing extension packages that add PowerShell functions to your package automation scripts.
Pro Integrates with almost every configuration management / infrastructure automation / RMM tool
Chocolatey integrates with almost every infrastructure automation tool out there. https://chocolatey.org/docs/features-infrastructure-automation
Pro More Selection
It has programs that can't be found in scoop or ninite.
Pro Free and Open Source
Github repo can be found here.
Pro Absolutely zero costs
Unlike some competitors, there is no free nor paid version, simply the FLOSS software as it is built.
Pro Apps are installed without requiring admin permission
Installing for all users requires admin permissions in order to be secure, so scoop installs without that requiring an elevated command prompt.
Pro App packages install locally (so users can preserve their own environment) or globally
Pro App installs are independent and self-contained; therefore, they have fewer conflicts and are easier to uninstall
Pro Users can easily create their own apps and collections of apps
Pro Customisable selection
If the standard package selection isn't enough for you, you can easily find additional "buckets" that suit your needs. You can also create your own and share them.
Pro Good CLI UX
Packages have well-defined, simple names, without any unnecessary duplication, and are actively maintained. If you are used to Homebrew in OSX, you will (almost) feel at home.
Pro Great help available on GitHub Wiki
Pro Installed packages verified by checksums
Pro Easy to upgrade installed packages
Easy to upgrade installed packages, unlike in Chocolately which makes you pay for upgrade feature.
Pro Sets reasonable default configuration options for apps
E.g. installing npm configures the global package prefix to your local app folder, and curl includes the Mozilla CA list.
Pro Simple versioning model for dependencies
In Chocolatey, if a package declares dependencies on a bad version of a package, installation or upgrade might break. Scoop dependencies are the latest version of a package, which reduces the chance of things breaking.
Con Sometimes hard to know which package to install from community package repository
The community repository contains multiple packages with similar names, making it hard to know which one to install. This is of course only related to using Chocolatey with the community repository, and you can look up the number of downloads to see which are the most widely used.
Con Some package installs aren't good or polished or don't install well
Macrium downloads the online installer, 7-zip doesn't associate files, PotPlayer is outdated, etc.
Con Uploading packages can be time consuming
It can take weeks to have a package accepted and with a fair amount of resubmitting for the dev/ maintainer.
Con Unable to easily change your install directory in the free version
In the free version you must know the native installer switches and pass them through with install args. In the paid versions you have a ubiquitous install directory option where Chocolatey determines how to properly pass that to the underlying native installer.
Details on the differences - http://stackoverflow.com/a/19777121
Con Incomplete and conflicting package options
Not enough maintenance done to package library so there are different similarly-named or -versioned packages available, some broken and some not.
Con Has a smaller selection of packages than Chocolatey
While Chocolatey seems to have a huge selection of packages including some windows updates, Scoop has a much smaller selection mainly focused on command-line tools. However, it can be argued that Scoop is focusing on a different type of setup than Chocolatey so package count may not be a good comparison.
Con Doesn't handle dependencies, which is the entire point
Judging from the author's own demo video, where git fails to install because it requires other stuff.
Seems like the author has never used a real package manager like apt.