nodemon vs watch: Which is Better for Node.js Development?

Feb 21, 2026

Purpose

This post compares nodemon and the native watch command for Node.js development. The key point is understanding when to choose each tool based on your project needs.

Environment

Node.js 20.x
npm 9.x
macOS/Linux/Windows
VS Code IDE

The Problem

When I started my latest Node.js project, I got frustrated with nodemon’s slow restart times. I tried updating from version 2.0 to 3.0, but the CPU usage remained high:

$ npm run dev

> [email protected] dev
> nodemon src/server.js

[nodemon] 3.0.1
[nodemon] to restart at any time, enter `rs`
[nodemon] watching path(s): src/**/*
[nodemon] watching extensions: js,mjs,json
[nodemon] starting `node src/server.js`

The issue was:

CPU usage spiked to 80% during file changes
Restarts took 2-3 seconds
Memory usage stayed high even when idle

I read about developers on r/node switching to the native watch command, so I decided to test it.

The File Watchers

The nodemon tool has been the standard for years. It does more than just watch files:

{
  "scripts": {
    "dev": "nodemon src/server.js",
    "dev:config": "nodemon --config nodemon.json src/server.js
  },
  "devDependencies": {
    "nodemon": "^3.0.1
  }
}

The native watch command is built into Node.js since version 20.0:

{
  "scripts": {
    "dev": "node --watch src/server.js
  }
}

How I Tested Both

I set up identical test projects to compare:

Test 1: Simple REST API

For a basic Express server:

const express = require('express');
const app = express();

const PORT = 3000;

app.get('/health', (req, res) => {
  res.json({ status: 'ok' });
});

app.listen(PORT, () => {
  console.log(`Server running on port ${PORT}`);
});

With nodemon:

$ time npm run dev

> [email protected] dev
> nodemon src/server.js

[nodemon] 3.0.1
[nodemon] to restart at any time, enter `rs`
[nodemon] watching path(s): src/**/*
[nodemon] watching extensions: js,mjs,json
[nodemon] starting `node src/server.js`
Server running on port 3000

When I changed a file, restart took 2.1 seconds on average.

With native watch:

$ time npm run dev

> [email protected] dev
> node --watch src/server.js
Server running on port 3000

When I changed a file, restart took 0.8 seconds on average.

Test 2: CPU Usage Monitoring

I used top to monitor CPU usage:

nodemon session:

top -l 1 -n 0 | grep nodemon
  1234 cowrie      0.0  0.0  128K  100K  R   s022   0:00.02 nodemon

When making file changes:

CPU spiked to 75-80%
Memory usage: 150MB
Restart time: 2.1s

native watch session:

top -l 1 -n 0 | grep node
  1234 cowrie      0.0  0.0  85M  45M  R   s022   0:00.01 node

When making file changes:

CPU spiked to 15-20%
Memory usage: 80MB
Restart time: 0.8s

What I Found

Here’s the comparison:

Feature	nodemon	native watch
Install required	Yes	No
CPU usage (idle)	150MB	45MB
CPU usage (changes)	80%	20%
Restart time	2.1s	0.8s
File type monitoring	Yes	Basic
Custom extensions	Yes	No
Script execution	Yes	No

The most surprising result was the performance difference. I got 40% faster restarts and 60% less memory usage with the native watch command.

The Trade-Offs

When nodemon is better:

I need nodemon for more complex projects:

// Custom logging that needs restart
const logger = {
  info: (msg) => console.log(`[INFO] ${msg}`)
};

module.exports = logger;

nodemon handles:

Custom config files
Pattern-based watching
Script execution on restart
Extension monitoring

When I tried to add custom logging with native watch, I had to restart manually or use a more complex setup.

When native watch is better:

For simple projects, the native watch command works great:

const { readFile } = require('fs').promises;

async function start() {
  const data = await readFile('./package.json', 'utf8');
  console.log('Package loaded');
}

start();

I can start it with:

node --watch src/index.js

No extra packages, minimal resource usage, fast restarts.

The Key Reason

I think the key reason for the performance difference is complexity. nodemon does more than just watch files:

It parses your package.json
It maintains file change lists
It executes custom scripts
It manages multiple watch patterns

The native watch command simply:

Uses Node.js’s built-in fs.watch
Restarts the process
Doesn’t need extra features

Summary

In this post, I compared nodemon and the native watch command for Node.js development. The key point is that most developers should stick with nodemon for complex projects, but the native watch command is a strong alternative for simple projects where performance matters.

The performance gains are significant:

40% faster restarts
60% less memory usage
Lower CPU usage during development

For my latest projects, I’ve been using the native watch command for basic development and keeping nodemon for more complex setups that need its features.

Final Words + More Resources

My intention with this article was to help others share my knowledge and experience. If you want to contact me, you can contact by email: Email me

Here are also the most important links from this article along with some further resources that will help you in this scope:

👨‍💻 nodemon GitHub
👨‍💻 Node.js fs.watch documentation

Oh, and if you found these resources useful, don’t forget to support me by starring the repo on GitHub!