Introduction: two major desktop proxy tools with very different ideas
In 2026, V2RayN and Clash Verge Rev are two of the most discussed desktop proxy tools, but they are popular for different reasons. V2RayN grows out of a power-user Windows tradition and focuses on multi-core flexibility, protocol breadth, and deeper routing control. Clash Verge Rev grows out of the Clash ecosystem and focuses on a cleaner UI, a more unified workflow, and a smoother transition from Clash for Windows.
Both can run on Windows, macOS, and Linux. Both support TUN mode. Both are active projects. The real difference is that V2RayN behaves more like a protocol control panel, while Clash Verge Rev behaves more like a polished mihomo frontend built around Clash YAML.
If you are choosing based on workflow rather than hype, that distinction matters more than star count. V2RayN gives you more room to experiment. Clash Verge Rev gives you a more focused, easier-to-explain daily setup.
Quick verdict
Choose V2RayN if you want multi-protocol flexibility and advanced routing. Choose Clash Verge Rev if you are familiar with the Clash ecosystem, want a simpler UI, or are migrating from CFW.
- Choose V2RayN: you want Xray, sing-box, and mihomo in one place, with more room for protocol experiments.
- Choose Clash Verge Rev: you already think in Clash YAML, want a modern GUI, and prefer a more guided daily workflow.
- Choose either: you only need mainstream subscriptions, desktop TUN, and solid day-to-day proxy use.
Core architecture: multi-core controller vs single-core mihomo frontend
Based on verified public specs, V2RayN is currently at v7.18.0 with about 98.6k GitHub stars. It is built on .NET 8 and can switch between Xray, sing-box, and mihomo. Clash Verge Rev is at v2.4.6 with about 102k GitHub stars. It uses a Tauri application shell and stays centered on mihomo.
That one difference explains most of the comparison. V2RayN is valuable because it is not locked to a single interpretation of proxy config. Clash Verge Rev is valuable because it is locked to one strong ecosystem and therefore feels more coherent.
| Dimension | V2RayN | Clash Verge Rev |
|---|---|---|
| Desktop stack | .NET 8 | Tauri / Rust shell |
| Core model | Xray / sing-box / mihomo | mihomo only |
| Main benefit | Flexibility and protocol reach | Consistency and cleaner UX |
Protocol support: V2RayN still wins on flexibility
It would be inaccurate to say Clash Verge Rev is weak on protocols. It is not. With mihomo, it handles the mainstream set well. The reason V2RayN still wins this category is broader flexibility: it can move between different cores and therefore cover more native behaviors outside a purely Clash YAML-first workflow.
| Protocol / ability | V2RayN | Clash Verge Rev | Context |
|---|---|---|---|
| VMess / VLESS / Trojan / SS | â | â | Both cover the common protocols well. |
| Hysteria2 | â | â | V2RayN has more room to swap cores if one implementation behaves better. |
| AnyTLS | â | â ī¸ | This is where V2RayN's wider core strategy matters more. |
| Non-Clash-native config paths | â | â | Clash Verge Rev stays inside the Clash / mihomo world by design. |
If your provider already gives you solid Clash-compatible subscriptions, Clash Verge Rev is enough for most people. If you frequently mix providers, protocols, and core-specific features, V2RayN gives you more headroom.
Config format: native JSON-style thinking vs Clash YAML thinking
V2RayN feels more like a client that manages nodes, cores, and native config ideas. Clash Verge Rev feels more like a client that manages profiles, groups, rules, and providers inside Clash YAML. That difference matters because it changes how you debug problems and how you migrate between services.
- V2RayN upside: better for raw flexibility, native core features, and mixed protocol workflows.
- V2RayN downside: the mental model is broader, so new users have more to learn.
- Clash Verge Rev upside: YAML-centric logic is easier to share, migrate, and explain.
- Clash Verge Rev downside: once your needs move beyond the Clash ecosystem, it becomes less open-ended than V2RayN.
User interface: classic utility UI vs modern Tauri UI
V2RayN still looks like a traditional desktop utility, especially on Windows. That does not make it bad. In fact, many long-time users like it because important actions are visible and not hidden behind too many layers. But it is visually denser and less inviting for first-time users.
Clash Verge Rev has the more modern interface. Sidebars, settings structure, and subscription flow all feel closer to what users expect from a current desktop app. If your decision is heavily influenced by visual clarity and shorter discovery time, Clash Verge Rev is the easier sell.
Performance & resources: Tauri is lighter, but the full picture is more nuanced
At the desktop-shell level, Clash Verge Rev usually has the advantage because Tauri tends to be lighter than a .NET 8 frontend. In real use, however, the selected core, the size of your subscriptions, TUN mode, and active rule sets all matter more than the shell alone.
That means Clash Verge Rev often feels lighter at idle and on startup, but once both clients are doing real work the gap becomes smaller. Modern hardware handles both without much trouble. The difference matters more on older machines or if you care deeply about minimizing UI overhead.
| Practical benchmark trend | V2RayN | Clash Verge Rev |
|---|---|---|
| Cold start feel | Moderate | Faster |
| Idle UI overhead | Higher | Lower |
| Large subscription handling | Stable | Smooth |
| Gap after TUN is enabled | Smaller | Smaller |
TUN mode: both support it, but the experience is different
Both tools support TUN mode, which matters when apps ignore ordinary system proxy settings. The difference is that V2RayN lets TUN behavior vary with the core you choose, while Clash Verge Rev gives you a more unified mihomo-centered experience.
If your goal is simple whole-device traffic capture inside the Clash ecosystem, Clash Verge Rev is usually easier. If your goal is to experiment with how different cores behave under TUN, V2RayN gives you more room to do that.
Subscription management: V2RayN is deeper, Clash Verge Rev is cleaner
V2RayN offers strong subscription management, but it still feels like a classic tool: there are more menus and more moving parts. Clash Verge Rev presents subscriptions, profiles, groups, and rules more visually, which is especially appealing to users who already live in the Clash YAML world.
- V2RayN: better when you intentionally maintain multiple services, mixed cores, and different routing experiments.
- Clash Verge Rev: better when you want your subscription workflow to stay simple and immediately understandable.
Advanced features: V2RayN wins on multi-core and ECH, Verge Rev wins on scripts and proxy chain
Advanced users tend to care less about the home screen and more about what happens when things get weird. V2RayN is stronger when you need multi-core switching, newer transport combinations, ECH-related experimentation, or a more native relationship with Xray and sing-box behavior.
Clash Verge Rev is stronger when your advanced needs stay inside the Clash ecosystem: enhancement scripts, proxy chain logic, profile overrides, and more comfortable rule-centric operations. Neither is absolutely better; they simply optimize for different forms of power.
Comprehensive comparison table
| Dimension | V2RayN | Clash Verge Rev |
|---|---|---|
| Version | v7.18.0 | v2.4.6 |
| GitHub stars | 98.6k | 102k |
| Core model | Xray / sing-box / mihomo | mihomo |
| Protocol flexibility | Broader | Strong inside Clash ecosystem |
| Platforms | Win / Mac / Linux | Win / Mac / Linux |
| Config style | Native config thinking | Clash YAML |
| UI style | Classic utility UI | Modern Tauri UI |
| TUN mode | Supported, more core-dependent | Supported, more unified |
| Resource trend | Slightly heavier shell | Slightly lighter shell |
| Learning curve | Medium | Lower |
| Subscription UX | More granular | More visual |
| Update rhythm | Active, multi-core oriented | Active, UI + mihomo oriented |
Who should choose what
Choose V2RayN if:
- You regularly switch between providers, protocols, and core-specific features.
- You want to understand what Xray, sing-box, and mihomo each do better.
- You care more about flexibility than visual polish.
Choose Clash Verge Rev if:
- You already think in Clash YAML and rule-provider logic.
- You want a simpler GUI and a lower-friction daily workflow.
- You are moving away from Clash for Windows and want the smoothest landing.
macOS users: the natural recommendation is still ClashX
Both work on macOS, but for a native menu-bar proxy that integrates perfectly with macOS, consider ClashX.
That does not mean V2RayN or Clash Verge Rev are bad on Mac. It means they still feel like cross-platform tools first. If your Mac is your main machine and you care about menu-bar flow, system integration, and long-term low-friction use, ClashX remains the more natural fit.
V2RayN and Clash Verge Rev make more sense on macOS when your priority is consistency across operating systems or when you have a very specific protocol or Clash-ecosystem reason to use them.
FAQ
1. Can I switch between V2RayN and Clash Verge Rev?
Yes. Standard subscriptions usually move over fine, but advanced fields do not always map one to one. Expect some manual cleanup when you cross from native Xray or sing-box thinking into a YAML-first client, or vice versa.
2. Which one is better for beginners?
Clash Verge Rev is usually easier for beginners because the interface is cleaner and the workflow is more obvious. V2RayN is better once you actually want to learn what the underlying cores and routing options are doing.
3. Can V2RayN use Clash config?
Yes, especially when you switch to mihomo core, but it is not as naturally YAML-first as Clash Verge Rev. Complex scripts, overrides, or provider logic may still need manual work.
4. Which one uses less resources?
Clash Verge Rev usually has the lighter shell. Once you turn on TUN and load larger rule sets, the difference gets smaller because the active core matters more than the UI shell.
5. Which one handles China mainland bypass better?
If you already use polished Clash rule providers, Clash Verge Rev is usually easier. V2RayN can be just as good or better, but it expects more manual routing decisions when you go beyond default templates.
6. Which one updates more frequently?
Both are active. Clash Verge Rev often feels faster on visible UI updates, while V2RayN stays competitive by tracking multiple core ecosystems and keeping its compatibility range wide.