Bridgy vs Cactus Comments
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted apps from related categories — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Bridgy
Connect personal websites to social networks
VS
Cactus Comments
Federated commenting system built on Matrix
| Feature | Bridgy | Cactus Comments |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Social Networks | Chat & Communication |
| License | CC0-1.0 | MIT |
| Language | Python | Elixir |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | source | docker, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 836 | ★ 200 |
| First released | 2013 | 2020 |
| Replaces | Disqus, Hosted social embeds | Disqus |
Why pick each one
Choose Bridgy if…
- Released under the CC0-1.0 license
- Written in Python
- Tiny footprint — runs in 256 MB RAM
Choose Cactus Comments if…
- Released under the MIT license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Written in Elixir
- Tiny footprint — runs in 256 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Bridgy or Cactus Comments better?
Neither is universally better. Bridgy has the larger community, while Cactus Comments is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Bridgy and Cactus Comments free and open-source?
Yes. Bridgy is licensed under CC0-1.0 and Cactus Comments under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Bridgy and Cactus Comments with Docker?
Bridgy: check the project docs for container support. Cactus Comments: yes.