Roku vs. Apple TV vs. Chromecast: Which Device Wins?

Face-off
By
published

We put the Roku 3, Apple TV and Chromecast through a multi-round battle. Only one device will emerge as the best streaming media player.

Quality, Performance, and Apps

Quality and Performance

All three streaming players can deliver up to 1080p video. The image quality ultimately depends on the quality of your Internet connection. However, there were some notable differences between the players in our testing.

We managed to confuse the Apple TV by switching between services. We experimented with playing our existing iTunes radio stations, for example, and then attempted to launch a program on the Korean programming station, KORTV. The music continued to play, but the video never appeared. Rebooting the box cleared up the problem.

The Roku 3 box was tested in multiple locations, which revealed one of its strengths: It is particularly good at picking up and retaining a Wi-Fi connection even in places where Wi-Fi-equipped TVs and other devices fail to make a connection. That ability translates into better quality video on, for example, its Netflix app than on similar apps running on some competing devices.

For its part, Chromecast's only shortcoming in this area was that it was slower to respond to commands, thanks to the inherent limitations of its smartphone and tablet apps (versus dedicated remotes). We found the Netflix controller on a Samsung Galaxy S4, for example, balky and reticent.

Winner: Roku. Both Apple TV and the Roku 3 performed well, but a slight edge should be given to Roku for its Wi-Fi sensitivity.

Apps

There are but a few apps for Apple TV (despite being on the market for several years), and Google's relatively new Chromecast has even less support. No doubt, Google could push more Android apps to support Chromecast, given its dominance in the smartphone market, but so far, the company has not demonstrated such a desire.

Roku is independent but has also been on the market longer and has more experience in the streaming-media space. The company has been adept at encouraging third parties to create channels for its device and now lists more than 1,000 (which do not include the multitude of private channels set up by companies and organizations). It has also made its way into the casual gaming market, with more than 60 games available on the Roku 3, including popular titles like "Angry Birds" and "Centipede." Roku even has its own Facebook client.

Winner: Roku. For the time being, Roku wins by a long shot. But keep an eye on Google.

John R. Quain
John R. Quain

John R. Quain has been reviewing and testing video and audio equipment for more than 20 years. For Tom's Guide, he has reviewed televisions, HDTV antennas, electric bikes, electric cars, as well as other outdoor equipment. He is currently a contributor to The New York Times and the CBS News television program.

9 Comments Comment from the forums
  • ssalim
    Lol, Roku wins all. Yea, alright.
    Reply
  • blackmagnum
    I'm gonna buy me and my unborn son some Roku shares.
    Reply
  • Uwbecks
    I expected each one to win at least one category. However, I do own two Roku's and they really are fantastic. All the features and benefits mentioned in the article are true, so maybe they really are that much better than the competition.
    Reply
  • NaughtyLuvJungle
    I own both Roku and Chromecast. Agree on every point except the interface and controls, which Chromecast is way better at. Very much disagree that Chromecast is in any way difficult to use, and in fact in my house I find myself using Chromecast whenever possible over Roku (which is only about half the time due to the lack of compatible apps). I very much dislike trying to enter text into search boxes one painful letter at a time using Roku's remote, and fast forward/rewind on a Roku is like using the DVD player I had in 1999 as opposed to Chromecast where I can just touch the progress slide bar my tablet to jump to any point in the show/movie instantly. Finally the blurb about the cast button not being exclusive to Chromecast is misleading. With Roku I have to pair each device manually to each app to enable casting. With Chromecast it magically appears on every compatible app on every device instantly. If a friend visits they can instantly cast to my Chromecast with their smartphone as soon as they connect to my Wi-Fi without having to do anything. Actually it's enjoyable watching the reaction when a guest wants to show me a YouTube video on their phone and I tell them to play it on my TV. Seeing their amazement when they realize that their phone YouTube app already has detected Chromecast and the cast button magically appeared there, and they just press it to play to my TV, is quite fun. I think when Chromecast gets support for a wide array of content Roku will either have to adopt the same interface or it will go out of business.
    Reply
  • NaughtyLuvJungle
    I own both Roku and Chromecast. Agree on every point except the interface and controls, which Chromecast is way better at. Very much disagree that Chromecast is in any way difficult to use, and in fact in my house I find myself using Chromecast whenever possible over Roku (which is only about half the time due to the lack of compatible apps). I very much dislike trying to enter text into search boxes one painful letter at a time using Roku's remote, and fast forward/rewind on a Roku is like using the DVD player I had in 1999 as opposed to Chromecast where I can just touch the progress slide bar my tablet to jump to any point in the show/movie instantly. Finally the blurb about the cast button not being exclusive to Chromecast is misleading. With Roku I have to pair each device manually to each app to enable casting. With Chromecast it magically appears on every compatible app on every device instantly. If a friend visits they can instantly cast to my Chromecast with their smartphone as soon as they connect to my Wi-Fi without having to do anything. Actually it's enjoyable watching the reaction when a guest wants to show me a YouTube video on their phone and I tell them to play it on my TV. Seeing their amazement when they realize that their phone YouTube app already has detected Chromecast and the cast button magically appeared there, and they just press it to play to my TV, is quite fun. I think when Chromecast gets support for a wide array of content Roku will either have to adopt the same interface or it will go out of business.
    Reply
  • Hugh Janus
    I have all 3 and for me Apple is my go to box. It's got the best interface. Easy to use and with airplay from my iPad and Mac I watch just about anything I want. Just sayin.
    Reply
  • YourBiased
    I too own a chromecast and a roku. Roku wins on price? Someone needs to go back to school. You lose power on your device operating the chromecast? That is one of the lamest things I have ever heard. Ok, so you can't put batteries in it, how about plug it in?? What if my roku remote batteries die and I don't have any replacements? I have to run to the store. That argument makes just about as much sense as yours (in other words, none). Seems you are very slanted towards roku. While I have both, I much prefer the chromecast because it is easier, faster and doesn't start off with a blurry picture like the roku.
    Reply
  • Terminatah Xray
    I have the Roku3 and couldn't be happier. I purchased it primarily for streaming my own movies to my big screen, but the channels were a nice added surprise. I have a VM that holds my movies and streams to the Roku3 via Plex. IQ and performance is amazing. I can also get to Netflix, Youtube and Amazone Prime with exceptional quality and performance. Didin't like Apple because Apple has too many restrictions, I have tons and tons of my own movies. Apple also doesn't have the choices that Roku has. Chromecast lacks the performance and configurability of Roku and can't be connected to most of my TVs dude to the size of the device. The Roku Android app is amazing as well. Roku all the way, its not even a fair fight.
    Reply
  • AlexL8102
    I have the Roku, the Chromecast and the WD TV Live which I think should have also been compared because of it's ability to play pretty much any file type. Depending on your needs and what entertainment you prefer each has their clear strength. Roku is a clear winner when it comes to variety of content and channels. It has a great interface and works with it's own remote or a Logitech universal remote that could work with all your other streaming devices as well so you don't have 10 remotes to juggle.Chromecast is great for casting videos, data, music or whatever to your TV but requires other Apps to provide the interface. This isn't so bad depending on the device you are using. If you are using your computer screen it's not that bad, but its also better to see the TV screen at the same time if you can. If you are using your phone then your screen on your remote is still a bit small for browsing through videos. If you have a tablet to use in front of your TV you are in good shape I would say.The WD TV Live is one of my favorites because It has all your basic channels like Pandora, Hulu, Netflix, but it's claim to fame is that any data you have on a hard drive can be played on your WD to your TV no matter the file type. No other streaming device has the drivers to play all the different file types that WD can. Also each WD TV Live can stream to the next one in your house so if you have data connected to one of them it is essentially connected to all of them to play on any TV in the house. Plus if you have a video on your computer you can simply right click on it and cast or play it on any TV in your house that has a WD TV Live connected to it. I have found that the WD has a very sensitive WiFi connection and rarely have any issues at all using this device for streaming. I have an Itunes account, but with all the other streaming devices I currently have, I see no reason to get Apple TV.
    Reply