Cactus Comments vs Schnack
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?
Cactus Comments
Federated commenting system built on Matrix
VS
Schnack
Lightweight self-hosted commenting system
| Feature | Cactus Comments | Schnack |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Chat & Communication | Forums & Community |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | Elixir | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker, source | bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 200 | ★ 1,812 |
| First released | 2020 | 2018 |
| Replaces | Disqus | Disqus, Facebook Comments |
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
Choose Schnack if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Active community (1.8k GitHub stars)
- Written in JavaScript
Frequently asked questions
Is Cactus Comments or Schnack better?
Schnack is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Cactus Comments if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Cactus Comments and Schnack free and open-source?
Yes. Cactus Comments is licensed under MIT and Schnack under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Cactus Comments and Schnack with Docker?
Cactus Comments: yes. Schnack: check the project docs for container support.