StackWM vs Amethyst
Choose StackWM if automatic tiling feels too rigid and you want stable regions plus per-zone stacks. Choose Amethyst if you want a tiling-first desktop and prefer the manager to keep redistributing space automatically.
Amethyst is better if you want auto-tiling to stay in charge. StackWM is better if equal-size tiling keeps fighting your sense of focus.
This page focuses on the differences most likely to affect a buying or switching decision, not every checkbox in either product.
StackWM fits best if
- You want the focus area to stay stable even when more windows join the workflow.
- You dislike the way tiling can keep shrinking the active app as more windows appear.
- You want scene recall and stack cycling rather than automatic retile of every visible window.
Amethyst may be enough if
- Amethyst is attractive if you want the entire screen to remain automatically tiled.
- It fits users who prefer a classic tiling mental model and do not mind adapting to it.
- Automatic redistribution can be useful if you want everything visible all the time.
What actually changes in daily use
Amethyst keeps windows tiled. StackWM lets one area stay focused while context windows sit behind a stack until you need them.
Stacks avoid the equal-space assumption that many tiling workflows impose.
Scenes better support recurring role-based work contexts.
The system feels less like managing layout mathematics and more like managing attention.
If you are switching from Amethyst
- If you still believe in tiling but dislike the visual result, StackWM is a useful test because it changes the model rather than tweaking the tiler.
- Expect less automatic redistribution and more explicit region meaning.
- Do not switch if the main thing you value is having every visible window stay tiled all the time.
| Decision point | StackWM | Amethyst |
|---|---|---|
| Automatic tiling as the default desktop model | No. | Yes. |
| Named zones with stacked windows | Yes. | No first-class equivalent. |
| Scene-based workspace switching | Yes. | Not the primary focus. |
| Best fit if rigid tiling feels constraining | Higher. | Lower. |
| Best fit if you want everything visible at once | Lower. | Higher. |
FAQ
Is StackWM anti-tiling?
No. It simply starts from a different premise: some screen areas should stay stable and hold stacks, rather than constantly redistributing all visible windows.
Who should stay with Amethyst?
Users who like automatic tiling and want their desktop to behave that way most of the time.
Who should consider StackWM after trying Amethyst?
Users who found tiling efficient in theory but frustrating in daily focus-heavy work.
Read next
Other comparisons
StackWM vs Rectangle
Choose StackWM if you want named zones, per-zone stacks, and repeatable scene restore on wide screens. Choose Rectangle if your workflow mostly stops at fast snapping and resize shortcuts. If you are considering Rectangle Pro, the gap is less about raw feature count and more about whether you want a dedicated workspace model.
StackWM vs Magnet
Choose StackWM if you need your display to behave like a reusable work surface with zones, stacks, and scenes. Choose Magnet if you want a straightforward snap tool and prefer manual arrangement over adopting a richer workspace model.
StackWM vs yabai
Choose StackWM if you want a lower-friction, desk-like workflow built around zones, stacks, and scenes. Choose yabai if you want a deeply configurable tiling window manager and accept a steeper setup and configuration curve.