# Axum vs Actix Web: source lines of code compared

The Axum vs Actix Web comparison on OctoCounts shows side-by-side source line counts for tokio-rs/axum and actix/actix-web, counted with the same engine and analysis options on the dates shown in the methodology line: files, total lines, code lines, comment lines, blank lines, and per-language totals, pinned to the exact commits listed below.

As of 2026-09-19, tokio-rs/axum contains 38,113 total lines (28,536 code) across 273 files, while actix/actix-web contains 73,267 total lines (55,350 code) across 300 files as of 2026-08-26. actix/actix-web is about 1.9x the size of tokio-rs/axum by code lines. Code size is not code quality: a larger count only means more source material, not a better or worse project.

| Metric | [tokio-rs/axum](https://octocounts.com/github/tokio-rs/axum) | [actix/actix-web](https://octocounts.com/github/actix/actix-web) |
| --- | ---: | ---: |
| Files | 273 | 300 |
| Total lines | 38,113 | 73,267 |
| Code lines | 28,536 | 55,350 |
| Comment lines | 3,790 | 5,750 |
| Blank lines | 5,787 | 12,167 |
| Languages counted | 8 | 7 |

Top languages in tokio-rs/axum: Rust (95.1% of code), TOML (4.4% of code), Jinja2 (0.1% of code). Top languages in actix/actix-web: Rust (97.9% of code), TOML (1.6% of code), BASH (0.2% of code). Rust, TOML appear in both top language lists; Jinja2, JavaScript, HTML appear only in tokio-rs/axum's top languages; BASH, Just, Shell appear only in actix/actix-web's top languages.

Methodology: both counts come from cached OctoCounts reports generated with tokei. tokio-rs/axum was counted at ref main (commit 3ea7f31b8e43) on 2026-09-19; actix/actix-web was counted at ref main (commit 5a9eafb991ac) on 2026-08-26. See the [counting methodology](https://octocounts.com/docs/methodology) for ignored directories and analysis options.
## About this comparison

tokio-rs/axum counts the Axum repository: an ergonomic web framework built on the Tokio ecosystem's tower and hyper components. actix/actix-web counts the Actix Web repository: a web framework with its own actor-model runtime layer underneath. Both are Rust web-framework source trees, counted with the same engine on the dates in the methodology line.

Both repositories are written in Rust, and the per-language tables reflect that on both sides; on this page the totals are the more informative number, since the language mix offers little contrast.

Axum's repository is comparatively thin over the shared Tokio ecosystem crates (which live in their own repositories), while Actix Web's repository carries its runtime layer in-tree — a structural difference visible only when the repositories are read, not from the counts alone.

_Neither number measures request throughput or latency for a real service; both frameworks sit on top of asynchronous runtimes whose behavior depends on workload, configuration, and the ecosystem crates each application pulls in._

Sources: [tokio-rs/axum repository](https://github.com/tokio-rs/axum) · [actix/actix-web repository](https://github.com/actix/actix-web). Statements verified 2026-09-16.

Evidence and next steps:

- [tokio-rs/axum SLOC report](https://octocounts.com/github/tokio-rs/axum)
- [actix/actix-web SLOC report](https://octocounts.com/github/actix/actix-web)
- [Compare tokio-rs/axum and actix/actix-web interactively](https://octocounts.com/compare?left=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Ftokio-rs%2Faxum&right=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Factix%2Factix-web)

Note: code size is not code quality. OctoCounts only reports reproducible line counts and makes no claim that either project is better.

## Compare FAQ

### Which has more lines of code, tokio-rs/axum or actix/actix-web?

actix/actix-web has more code: 55,350 code lines versus 28,536 for tokio-rs/axum, about 1.9x as much, based on cached OctoCounts reports as of 2026-09-19.

### Does more source lines of code mean more complexity?

Not necessarily. SLOC measures size, not complexity, quality, or maintainability. A larger codebase can mean more features, more generated or vendored code, more verbose language idioms, or more tests — none of which imply the code is harder to work with. Use SLOC to gauge the scale of what you'd be reading or maintaining, not as a quality signal for tokio-rs/axum, actix/actix-web, or any repository.

### How is this comparison calculated?

Methodology: both counts come from cached OctoCounts reports generated with tokei. tokio-rs/axum was counted at ref main (commit 3ea7f31b8e43) on 2026-09-19; actix/actix-web was counted at ref main (commit 5a9eafb991ac) on 2026-08-26. See the counting methodology for ignored directories and analysis options.

### Can I compare a different branch, tag, or commit?

Yes. This page shows the default branch for each repository. Use the interactive comparison tool to pick any public GitHub repository, branch, tag, or commit SHA for both sides and get a fresh side-by-side report.

## Related OctoCounts pages

- [Interactive repository comparison](https://octocounts.com/compare)
- [Recently analyzed repositories](https://octocounts.com/recent)
- [Popular SLOC reports](https://octocounts.com/popular)
- [Trending GitHub repositories](https://octocounts.com/trending)
- [Hall of Monoliths](https://octocounts.com/hall-of-monoliths)
- [Original research: how filtering changes SLOC counts](https://octocounts.com/research)
- [GitHub SLOC counter guide](https://octocounts.com/docs/github-sloc-counter)
- [Counting methodology](https://octocounts.com/docs/methodology)
- [SLOC and code metrics glossary](https://octocounts.com/docs/glossary)
- [OctoCounts API docs](https://octocounts.com/docs/api)