ct.js vs Phaser
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted game engines & frameworks options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
ct.js
Free 2D game editor with a visual interface and code
VS
Phaser
Fast HTML5 game framework for browser games you host yourself
| Feature | ct.js | Phaser |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Game Engines & Frameworks | Game Engines & Frameworks |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | TypeScript | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, binary | bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 331 | ★ 40,098 |
| First released | 2018 | 2013 |
| Replaces | GameMaker Studio | Construct, GameMaker |
Why pick each one
Choose ct.js if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Written in TypeScript
- Tiny footprint — runs in 256 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is ct.js or Phaser better?
Neither is universally better. Phaser has the larger community, while ct.js is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are ct.js and Phaser free and open-source?
Yes. ct.js is licensed under MIT and Phaser under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run ct.js and Phaser with Docker?
ct.js: check the project docs for container support. Phaser: check the project docs for container support.