Candy 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?
Candy
JavaScript-based multi-user XMPP chat client
VS
Etherpad
Real-time collaborative document editor
| Feature | Candy | Etherpad |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Chat & Communication | Chat & Communication |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | JavaScript | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 32 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, source | docker, bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 1,314 | ★ 18,481 |
| First released | 2011 | 2011 |
| Replaces | Chatango | Google Docs |
Why pick each one
Choose Candy if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Active community (1.3k GitHub stars)
- Written in JavaScript
Frequently asked questions
Is Candy or Etherpad better?
Neither is universally better. Etherpad has the larger community, while Candy is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Candy and Etherpad free and open-source?
Yes. Candy is licensed under MIT and Etherpad under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Candy and Etherpad with Docker?
Candy: check the project docs for container support. Etherpad: yes.