Toxic vs SchildiChat
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?
Toxic
Terminal-based client for the Tox messaging network
VS
SchildiChat
Element-based Matrix client with extra usability tweaks
| Feature | Toxic | SchildiChat |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Chat & Communication | Matrix & XMPP |
| License | GPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | C | Shell |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, source | docker, bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 1,301 | ★ 465 |
| First released | 2014 | 2020 |
| Replaces | Skype, WhatsApp | Slack, WhatsApp |
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
Choose SchildiChat if…
- Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Written in Shell
Frequently asked questions
Is Toxic or SchildiChat better?
Neither is universally better. Toxic has the larger community, while SchildiChat is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Toxic and SchildiChat free and open-source?
Yes. Toxic is licensed under GPL-3.0 and SchildiChat under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Toxic and SchildiChat with Docker?
Toxic: check the project docs for container support. SchildiChat: yes.