Cactus Comments vs Centrifugo
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?
Cactus Comments
Federated commenting system built on Matrix
VS
Centrifugo
Scalable real-time messaging server for apps and websites
| Feature | Cactus Comments | Centrifugo |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Chat & Communication | Chat & Communication |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | Elixir | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | docker, source | docker, kubernetes, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 200 | ★ 10,590 |
| First released | 2020 | 2015 |
| Replaces | Disqus | Pusher, Firebase Realtime Database |
Why pick each one
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 Cactus Comments or Centrifugo better?
Neither is universally better. Centrifugo has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Cactus Comments and Centrifugo free and open-source?
Yes. Cactus Comments is licensed under MIT and Centrifugo under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Cactus Comments and Centrifugo with Docker?
Cactus Comments: yes. Centrifugo: yes.