I have just found very comprehensive comparison of various BitTorrent clients at BitTorrent Client Shootout. Below is my summary plus my opinions.

1. BitTorrent Official Client
   1. Clean, clear, simple, and official one, DHT
   2. Open source
   3. Lack of features: download limitation, UPnP doesn’t work properly in some cases, intend to support only Windows
2. uTorrent 
   1. Small, fast, feature-rich including RSS reader, highly customizable configuration, DHT
   2. Freeware but not open source
   3. Windows only
3. BitTornado 
   1. Statistics-rich, inherited from the original client
   2. Open source
   3. Buggies...
4. Azureus 
   1. Beautiful, feature-rich: built-in tracker, DHT, highly extensible via plug-in, highly portable
   2. Open source
   3. It is very big because it is Java
5. BitComet 
   1. Small, fast, feature-rich: disk cache, DHT
   2. Freeware but not open source
   3. Windows only
6. BitLord 
   1. Claime to be another BitComet clone
   2. Adware
   3. Windows only
7. BTQueue 
   1. No graphics, no chart, just text: not only RSS but any web pages, DHT
   2. Open source
   3. Windows, Linux, FreeBSD, or any python-enabled platform

Ok. It’s now my turn. In my opinion, choosing a BitTorrent client is not that difficult. Actually, it strictly depends on what you have and what you really want.

1. What you have means to your platform, OS, network, and anything further.
2. What you want means to the purpose of downloading: serve yourself, provide hosting service, or only seed to other leechers.

As a result, my recommendation is in below table.

	Single User	Multi User (Hosting)	Seed only
Windows	Home: uTorrent Co-lo: BTQueue	Home: Azureus Co-lo: BTQueue	BTQueue
Mac	Home: Azureus Co-lo: BTQueue	Home: Azureus Co-lo: BTQueue	BTQueue
Linux	Home: Azureus Co-lo: BTQueue	Home: Azureus Co-lo: BTQueue	BTQueue
FreeBSD	Home: BTQueue Co-lo: BTQueue	Home: BTQueue Co-lo: BTQueue	BTQueue

Well, I may bias the recommendation to BTQueue but the point is if your machine are placed at co-location, so called data center, you are not always sitting at the console. To control a session, you have to use any kind of remote administration software, e.g., remote desktop, terminal service, VNC, or even ssh. I don’t think graphical remote access is a good solution even you are on high-speed network. SSH is the fastest and the most secure remote access. All clients are lacking of remote control capability via text command. Azureus has a plug-in to provide this functionality. However, not all functions are controllable via remote access. If it crashs, you have to recover in graphics mode. So my recommendations are based on below ideas.

• If you are just the single user at home, choose uTorrent, Azureus, and BTQueue, respectively
• If you share the machine among set of users, torrent hosting, Azureus or BTQueue is just for you
• If your machine is at data center, choose BTQueue

uTorrent is the best on Windows for single user by now but it requires graphics mode. You can’t use uTorrent for torrent hosting service and on non-Windows environment. If you just want to only seed (you are the source to pump out), BTQueue is the must. The reason is very simple, you don’t care how it works, graphics are not necessary at all. The original client could be another candidate but you will end up at so many processes running concurrently, otherwise, you need to start the client in graphics mode. Azureus is just good when you can’t run uTorrent or you want to control the client remotely, anyway, at home. If your machine is placed at data center, BTQueue is exactly what you want. If you are doubt, just try.

Technorati Tags: English, IT, Software, Review, BitTorrent, BitTorrent Client, UTorrent, Azureus, BitTornado, BitComet, BitLord, BTQueue, Torrent Hosting