Cactus Comments vs Etherpad
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
Etherpad
Real-time collaborative document editor
| Feature | Cactus Comments | Etherpad |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Chat & Communication | Chat & Communication |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Elixir | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, source | docker, bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 200 | ★ 18,481 |
| First released | 2020 | 2011 |
| Replaces | Disqus | Google Docs |
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 Etherpad better?
Neither is universally better. Etherpad has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Cactus Comments and Etherpad free and open-source?
Yes. Cactus Comments is licensed under MIT and Etherpad under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Cactus Comments and Etherpad with Docker?
Cactus Comments: yes. Etherpad: yes.