Toxic vs Jami Server Bridge
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?
Toxic
Terminal-based client for the Tox messaging network
VS
Jami Server Bridge
Self-hosted name registry and bridge for the Jami network
| Feature | Toxic | Jami Server Bridge |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Chat & Communication | Chat & Communication |
| License | GPL-3.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | C | C++ |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, source | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 1,301 | ★ 400 |
| First released | 2014 | 2017 |
| Replaces | Skype, WhatsApp | Skype, Zoom |
Why pick each one
Choose Toxic if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- Active community (1.3k GitHub stars)
- Written in C
- Tiny footprint — runs in 64 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Toxic or Jami Server Bridge better?
Neither is universally better. Toxic has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Toxic and Jami Server Bridge free and open-source?
Yes. Toxic is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Jami Server Bridge under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Toxic and Jami Server Bridge with Docker?
Toxic: check the project docs for container support. Jami Server Bridge: yes.