ct.js vs Retroarch Web Player

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?
Featurect.jsRetroarch Web Player
CategoryGame Engines & FrameworksGame Engines & Frameworks
LicenseMITGPL-3.0-or-later
LanguageTypeScriptC
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM256 MB50 MB
Deploymentbare-metal, binarybare-metal
GitHub stars★ 331★ 13,480
First released20182023
ReplacesGameMaker Studio

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
ct.js details

Choose Retroarch Web Player if…

  • Released under the GPL-3.0-or-later license
  • Mature project with 13.5k GitHub stars
  • Written in C
  • Tiny footprint — runs in 50 MB RAM
Retroarch Web Player details

Frequently asked questions

Is ct.js or Retroarch Web Player better?

Neither is universally better. Retroarch Web Player 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 Retroarch Web Player free and open-source?

Yes. ct.js is licensed under MIT and Retroarch Web Player under GPL-3.0-or-later. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run ct.js and Retroarch Web Player with Docker?

ct.js: check the project docs for container support. Retroarch Web Player: check the project docs for container support.

Related comparisons