[_d3Xt3r_]

> Performance is great, nearly "metal" SSD speeds.

But how does that compare exactly, performance wise, against Bitlocker and LUKS? (assuming similar strength encryption algorithms are selected)

[pulse7]

There is still an open issue in VeraCrypt (https://github.com/veracrypt/VeraCrypt/issues/136) because of which BitLocker is much faster on SSDs then VeraCrypt... But if you don't need those speads, VeraCrypt is still great...

[huhtenberg]

To nitpick - on _NVmE_ drives, not SSDs.

The principal difference is the native speed of raw IO - NVmEs are an order of magnitude faster than SSDs. TC/VC don't use hardware acceleration, so all the encryption work falls on the CPU. On a machine with a reasonably modern CPU, TC/VC run nearly at drive's native speed.

[baxuz]

Bitlocker is Microsoft's closed-source product. How can you be sure it doesn't have backdoors?

[shim__]

That question is pointless if you're using windows

[Ayesh]

I haven't used BitLocker or anything else, so I can't really compare.

Veracrypt has a neat benchmark tool so you know the speed beforehand. I suppose most CPUs have native support for the popular algorithms, so the bottleneck really is the disk, not CPU itself or the software.