coturn vs Jangouts
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted video conferencing options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
coturn
Open-source TURN and STUN server for WebRTC
VS
Jangouts
Videoconferencing based on WebRTC and Janus Gateway with an UI
| Feature | coturn | Jangouts |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Video Conferencing | Video Conferencing |
| License | BSD-3-Clause | MIT |
| Language | C | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 50 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal, binary | bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 14,274 | ★ 444 |
| First released | 2012 | 2025 |
| Replaces | — | Google Hangouts, Skype |
Why pick each one
Choose coturn if…
- Released under the BSD-3-Clause license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 14.3k GitHub stars
- Written in C
Choose Jangouts if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Written in JavaScript
- Tiny footprint — runs in 50 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is coturn or Jangouts better?
Neither is universally better. coturn has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are coturn and Jangouts free and open-source?
Yes. coturn is licensed under BSD-3-Clause and Jangouts under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run coturn and Jangouts with Docker?
coturn: yes. Jangouts: check the project docs for container support.