At a guess, I would expect kwm to be faster, but probably less far along than Amethyst in terms of features&#x2F;stability.<p>It&#x27;s been a long time since I&#x27;ve actually written any C++, but briefly looking through the code it looks like it&#x27;s making some of the same assumptions I made that resulted in some strange problems like the dreaded fullscreen bug (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;ianyh&#x2F;Amethyst&#x2F;issues&#x2F;254" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;ianyh&#x2F;Amethyst&#x2F;issues&#x2F;254</a>). That said, some of those assumptions were made 3 OS X versions ago so things might have improved.<p>It does, however, look a lot lighter weight than Amethyst is, and it looks like it does a better job at aggressively caching. It also supports binary space partitioning, which Amethyst doesn&#x27;t support yet (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;ianyh&#x2F;Amethyst&#x2F;issues&#x2F;255" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;ianyh&#x2F;Amethyst&#x2F;issues&#x2F;255</a>). If I&#x27;m reading it correctly, though, that&#x27;s the only thing it supports.<p>All in all, it seems like a great project. We could probably learn some things from each other, and I expect both projects would be the better for it.