ct.js vs PixiJS
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
PixiJS
Fast 2D WebGL rendering engine for browser games
| Feature | ct.js | PixiJS |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Game Engines & Frameworks | Game Engines & Frameworks |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | TypeScript | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, binary | source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 331 | ★ 47,976 |
| First released | 2018 | 2013 |
| Replaces | GameMaker Studio | Adobe Animate runtime |
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
Choose PixiJS if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Mature project with 48k GitHub stars
- Written in TypeScript
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is ct.js or PixiJS better?
Neither is universally better. PixiJS 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 PixiJS free and open-source?
Yes. ct.js is licensed under MIT and PixiJS under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run ct.js and PixiJS with Docker?
ct.js: check the project docs for container support. PixiJS: check the project docs for container support.