Briar vs Toxic
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted chat & communication options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Briar
Peer-to-peer encrypted messaging that works offline
VS
Toxic
Terminal-based client for the Tox messaging network
| Feature | Briar | Toxic |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Chat & Communication | Chat & Communication |
| License | GPL-3.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | Java | C |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | source | bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 800 | ★ 1,301 |
| First released | 2018 | 2014 |
| Replaces | Signal, WhatsApp | Skype, WhatsApp |
Why pick each one
Choose Briar if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- Written in Java
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Choose Toxic if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- Active community (1.3k GitHub stars)
- Written in C
- Tiny footprint — runs in 64 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Briar or Toxic better?
Neither is universally better. Toxic has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Briar and Toxic free and open-source?
Yes. Briar is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Toxic under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Briar and Toxic with Docker?
Briar: check the project docs for container support. Toxic: check the project docs for container support.