Cubase vs Reaper: An Honest Comparison by a Pro Who Uses Both Daily
Most DAW debates go the same way: people pick a side, defend it like a football club, and refuse to admit anything else exists. I'm going to do something different. Here's the honest truth from someone who uses both Cubase and Reaper professionally, every single day.
I use Cubase for composing and producing. Arrangements, virtual instruments, film scores, EDM and hardstyle productions — that's Cubase territory. Then I open the stems in Reaper for mixing and mastering. Different tools, different strengths, zero compromises.
After 26 years in the music industry, I've tried nearly everything. This isn't a spec-sheet comparison. It's what actually matters when you're staring at a deadline at 2 AM.
Cubase: The Powerhouse for Composition and Production
My production workflow starts here: composition, arrangement and sound design in Cubase. It has been a flagship DAW since the late 1980s. Steinberg built it to be the complete studio-in-a-box, and for production work that still holds true. Here's why I reach for it when building a track from scratch.
What Cubase does exceptionally well
- MIDI handling: The MIDI editor is in a different league. Chord tracks, expression maps, note expression — if you write for orchestral libraries or virtual instruments, nothing comes close.
- Score editor: For film and composition work, the built-in score editor is genuinely usable. Not Sibelius, but good enough that I skip a separate notation app on most projects.
- VariAudio: Steinberg's pitch correction is built right into the audio editor. It's fast, it sounds natural, and it keeps everything in one place.
- Control Room: Monitor switching, headphone mixes, talkback — all without touching your main mix bus. Underrated for anyone recording vocalists or working remotely.
- Instrument tracks: VSTi integration is seamless. Load a Kontakt library, a synth or a drum machine, and the routing stays clean.
- Writing with virtual instruments
- Film & cinematic scoring
- Vocal recording & editing
- Complex MIDI arrangements
- EDM & electronic production
- High CPU on large sessions
- Steep learning curve
- Premium price tag
- Heavy-handed licensing
- Less flexible mixing routing
Reaper: The Precision Tool for Mixing and Mastering
Reaper is the odd one out in the DAW world. Small company, no marketing budget, $60 for a full licence — yet it has become the go-to for a surprising number of professional engineers. There's a reason for that.
What Reaper does exceptionally well
- Routing: Reaper's routing matrix is the most powerful in any DAW, period. Multi-bus setups, parallel compression chains, complex sends — it handles everything without workarounds.
- Performance: The CPU footprint is remarkably small. I run sessions with 80+ tracks and heavy plugin chains without hitting the ceiling. Cubase would choke on the same machine.
- Customisation: Almost everything is customisable through scripting. If a feature doesn't exist, you build it. The community has made thousands of free scripts.
- Price: $60 for a discounted licence. That's not a typo. No subscription, no dongles. Steinberg charges 10x that for Cubase Pro.
- Stability: In years of professional use, I can count the crashes on one hand. It just works.
- Large session mixing
- Complex routing & bus chains
- Mastering with precision
- Low-budget professional setup
- Custom workflow automation
- Weak MIDI composition tools
- Ugly default interface
- Steep curve to customise
- Smaller plugin ecosystem
- Less intuitive for recording
Head-to-Head Comparison
Here's how they stack up across the areas that matter most for music producers and engineers.
| Category | Cubase Pro | Reaper | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| MIDI & Composition | Excellent — best in class | Functional but basic | Cubase |
| Mixing workflow | Good | Excellent — most flexible | Reaper |
| Mastering | Capable | Superior routing & precision | Reaper |
| CPU performance | Moderate | Excellent — very light | Reaper |
| Virtual instruments | Seamless integration | Works, less smooth | Cubase |
| Recording vocals | Excellent (Control Room) | Good | Cubase |
| Audio editing | Very good (VariAudio) | Excellent (fast) | Draw |
| Routing flexibility | Good | Best in class | Reaper |
| Customisation | Limited | Unlimited (ReaScript) | Reaper |
| Stability | Good | Excellent | Reaper |
| Price | €600+ (Pro) | €60 (discounted) | Reaper |
| Learning curve | Steep | Steep (different reasons) | Draw |
Which One Should You Use?
The honest answer: it depends on what you're doing. But here are clear recommendations based on your situation.
If you're primarily a composer or producer
If your work revolves around writing music — film scores, electronic productions, songs with many virtual instruments — Cubase gives you MIDI tools and a compositional workflow Reaper can't match. The investment is high, but the creative return is real.
If you're primarily a mixing or mastering engineer
If your job is to take someone else's stems and make them sound great, Reaper is the smarter choice. The routing, the performance and the flexibility — at a fraction of the cost. Most pro mixing engineers I know have switched to or added Reaper.
If you do both (like me)
There's no rule that you need a single DAW. I produce in Cubase, export stems, and open them in Reaper. The handoff takes 5 minutes. Stop looking for one perfect tool and start building a workflow that plays to the strengths of each.
My Actual Workflow: Cubase → Reaper
Here's exactly how a track moves through my studio, from first idea to finished master.
Production in Cubase
I build the full arrangement — synths, drums, melodic elements, bass, atmospherics. All MIDI, all virtual instruments. I use the Score editor for notation on film projects.
Stem export
Once the production is right, I export each element as a dry audio stem (usually 24-bit at 44.1 or 48kHz). No effects — just the audio.
Import into Reaper
The stems land in a clean Reaper session. I use a custom template built over years: parallel buses set up, favourite plugins pre-loaded, colour coding ready.
Mix in Reaper
This is where I spend the most time. EQ, compression, saturation, stereo width, reverb and delay — all built around Reaper's routing matrix. The low CPU load lets me run an aggressive chain on every track.
Master in Reaper
The master bus handles limiting, final EQ and loudness targeting. For EDM and hardstyle that's around −7 to −6 LUFS. For streaming-optimised masters, I aim for −14 LUFS.
The result: a track with the creative depth of a full Cubase production and the technical polish of a Reaper mix. The two-DAW workflow adds maybe 10 minutes per project. The quality difference is audible.
Want that level of polish on your track?
I mix and master EDM, hardstyle, film music and pop using the exact workflow above. Trusted by Charly Lownoise, T-Spoon, Harris & Ford and more.
Get in touch →