Firmware development remains closely associated with C, while teams increasingly combine it with C++, Python, Rust, and Assembly. A survey of Zephyr users and evaluators conducted from October–December 2025 also shows a field balancing portability, deployment scale, board support, security, and long-term maintenance. The results below describe the surveyed Zephyr community; they are not a measurement of every firmware project worldwide.
Contents
- Languages and processor platforms
- RTOS choices and deployment scale
- Hardware, industries, and regions
- Adoption, quality, and security outlook
- Architecture impacts and project priorities
- Community contribution and maintenance
Languages and processor platforms
The strongest language signal in the survey is the continuing role of C. Among 230 organizations using Zephyr-based firmware, 96% reported using C for development in the October–December 2025 survey. C++ was reported for application development by 30% of those organizations. Other languages appeared less often but still formed part of the development mix: 11% used Python or MicroPython, 10% used Rust, and 9% used Assembly. These are overlapping usage percentages, so they should not be added as if each organization selected only one language. Linux Foundation, “Zephyr Turns 10”
The platform results point to a similarly broad but concentrated hardware base. Among the surveyed Zephyr organizations, 88% reported using ARM Cortex-M platforms. RISC-V platforms were reported by 32%, while 21% used Xtensa-based systems such as ESP32. ARM Cortex-A processors appeared in 17% of responses. The figures indicate that Cortex-M is the dominant platform in this sample, while RISC-V, Xtensa, and Cortex-A provide meaningful alternatives for different firmware requirements. Linux Foundation, “Zephyr Turns 10”
For C programmers, the language statistic matters because it describes the main implementation environment rather than a historical footnote. The survey places C alongside newer choices, but the reported 96% usage shows that C remains the common foundation across the responding Zephyr organizations. C++ application work, scripting through Python or MicroPython, Rust adoption, and low-level Assembly use describe complementary patterns within the same ecosystem.
RTOS choices and deployment scale
RTOS selection varies substantially among the 413 surveyed organizations. Thirty percent standardized on a single RTOS across all firmware projects. Another 29% used two or three preferred RTOS options depending on project needs. Twenty percent evaluated and selected an RTOS separately for each project. Smaller groups inherited the decision from a hardware vendor or reference design (8%), used whichever RTOS the team already knew best (7%), or were unsure of their typical selection approach (7%). Linux Foundation, “Zephyr Turns 10”
| Typical RTOS-selection approach | Share of 413 organizations |
|---|---|
| One RTOS across all projects | 30% |
| Two or three preferred RTOS options | 29% |
| Select separately for each project | 20% |
| Hardware vendor or reference design | 8% |
| Team familiarity | 7% |
| Unsure | 7% |
The distribution suggests that firmware organizations use both standardization and project-specific evaluation. The two largest groups together account for organizations either standardizing completely or maintaining a small preferred set, while one in five makes a separate choice for each project. The survey does not establish which approach produces better outcomes; it records how respondents typically make the decision.
Deployment maturity also differs among the 230 organizations using or evaluating Zephyr. Fourteen percent had not yet deployed a device in production. At the other end of the reported scale, 13% had active deployments of 100,000 or more devices. Eleven percent had active deployments of 1,000–9,999 devices. These categories are not a complete distribution of every deployment size, but they show that the surveyed population includes both pre-production teams and organizations operating at substantial device volume. Linux Foundation, “Zephyr Turns 10”
Hardware, industries, and regions
Consumer and monitoring applications lead the reported use cases. Among 230 organizations embedding Zephyr firmware, 41% reported using it in consumer IoT devices such as smart-home products and appliances. Sensors and monitoring equipment followed at 35%. Computing devices, including edge-AI systems, gateways, or embedded computers, were reported by 25%. Industrial automation and control systems accounted for 16%, and wearable devices accounted for 13%. Linux Foundation, “Zephyr Turns 10”
These percentages represent reported application categories and may overlap where one organization works across several product types. They also describe organizations embedding Zephyr, not the total global installed base of firmware. Within that scope, the pattern is broad: Zephyr is used in connected consumer products, sensing systems, computing hardware, industrial equipment, and wearables.
Regional responses show different concentrations. In Europe, 46% of Zephyr respondents reported embedding the firmware in sensors and monitoring equipment, and 44% reported using it in consumer IoT devices. In Asia-Pacific, 46% reported consumer IoT use. In the United States and Canada, 51% reported embedding Zephyr in computing devices such as edge-AI systems or gateways. Linux Foundation, “Zephyr Turns 10”
The regional figures should be read as survey shares within each geography, not as regional market-size estimates. Europe’s reported emphasis on sensors and monitoring, Asia-Pacific’s consumer IoT figure, and the United States and Canada’s computing-device figure identify differences in respondent use cases without proving that one region has more firmware activity overall.
Adoption, quality, and security outlook
The adoption outlook among the 230 organizations using or evaluating Zephyr was positive overall. Forty-five percent planned to increase firmware adoption, including 24% that planned to increase it significantly. Twenty-four percent expected their adoption level to stay the same, while 1% expected adoption to decrease. The survey reports intentions at the time of measurement, so these are plans rather than confirmed future deployment totals. Linux Foundation, “Zephyr Turns 10”
Respondents also assessed changes since they started evaluating or using Zephyr. Across 215 Zephyr respondents, 79% said hardware and board support had improved. Sixty percent said connectivity support had improved. On security, 64% said security had improved or remained stable. The security figure combines improvement and stability; it should not be interpreted as 64% reporting improvement alone. Linux Foundation, “Zephyr Turns 10”
When asked about the next decade, 42% wanted a richer firmware ecosystem of libraries, middleware, and integrations. Forty percent wanted stronger long-term maintenance and long-term-support guarantees for firmware. The results place ecosystem breadth and maintenance commitments among the most visible future needs, alongside the reported gains in boards, connectivity, and security.
Architecture impacts and project priorities
Among 227 organizations using Zephyr, easier hardware portability was the most frequently identified major firmware impact at 49%. Community and ecosystem support followed at 36%. Faster product development cycles and freedom from vendor lock-in each reached 35%. Scalable firmware architecture was identified by 27%, while rich built-in connectivity options reached 26%. Linux Foundation, “Zephyr Turns 10”
The remaining reported impacts were a stronger foundation for long-term product roadmaps at 17%, simplified integration at 15%, and improved product reliability and stability at 14%. These responses are perceptions of major impact among the surveyed organizations, not controlled measurements of development speed, reliability, or portability.
The ordering is useful for understanding firmware architecture priorities. Portability leads the list, followed by the support available around the technology and the ability to move products through development more quickly. Vendor independence appears alongside speed, while scalability and connectivity are important but selected less often. Long-term roadmap support, integration simplicity, and reliability were selected by smaller shares in this question.
Community contribution and maintenance
The 397-person respondent group included several levels of participation. Thirty-one percent primarily used Zephyr firmware as end users or developers without modifying its core. Twenty percent identified as occasional contributors, and 12% identified as core developers or maintainers. The categories describe respondents’ roles and are not a count of all people working on firmware globally. Linux Foundation, “Zephyr Turns 10”
Contribution also varied by geography. In the United States and Canada, 62% of surveyed organizations reported contributing to Zephyr firmware. The corresponding share was 45% in Europe and 32% in Asia-Pacific. These percentages are geography-specific survey results and should not be treated as direct comparisons of the size of each regional developer population. Linux Foundation, “Zephyr Turns 10”
Among 125 Zephyr contributors, 70% received some form of compensation for their firmware-project involvement, while 20% contributed on their own unpaid time as volunteers. The source reports these participation circumstances without making them mutually exclusive, so the values should not be combined into a single labor-market total.
Finally, among 215 respondents, 60% used Zephyr GitHub issues, pull requests, or discussions as their main stakeholder-interaction channel. That result connects the project’s community structure to everyday maintenance and coordination: for a majority of this respondent group, the primary interaction path was a public project collaboration channel. Linux Foundation, “Zephyr Turns 10”