coturn vs MiroTalk SFU
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
MiroTalk SFU
Simple, secure, scalable real-time video conferences up to 4k,
| Feature | coturn | MiroTalk SFU |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Video Conferencing | Video Conferencing |
| License | BSD-3-Clause | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | C | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal, binary | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 14,274 | ★ 3,080 |
| First released | 2012 | 2020 |
| Replaces | — | — |
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 MiroTalk SFU if…
- Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (3.1k GitHub stars)
- Written in JavaScript
Frequently asked questions
Is coturn or MiroTalk SFU 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 MiroTalk SFU free and open-source?
Yes. coturn is licensed under BSD-3-Clause and MiroTalk SFU under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run coturn and MiroTalk SFU with Docker?
coturn: yes. MiroTalk SFU: yes.