ct.js vs TrinityCore

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.jsTrinityCore
CategoryGame Engines & FrameworksGame Engines & Frameworks
LicenseMITGPL-2.0
LanguageTypeScriptC++
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM256 MB4,096 MB
Deploymentbare-metal, binarybare-metal
GitHub stars★ 331★ 10,703
First released20182008
ReplacesGameMaker Studioofficial WoW servers

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 TrinityCore if…

  • Released under the GPL-2.0 license
  • Mature project with 10.7k GitHub stars
  • Written in C++
TrinityCore details

Frequently asked questions

Is ct.js or TrinityCore better?

Neither is universally better. TrinityCore 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 TrinityCore free and open-source?

Yes. ct.js is licensed under MIT and TrinityCore under GPL-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run ct.js and TrinityCore with Docker?

ct.js: check the project docs for container support. TrinityCore: check the project docs for container support.

Related comparisons