eturnal vs LiveKit
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?
eturnal
STUN and TURN server for real-time applications
VS
LiveKit
Scalable WebRTC infrastructure for real-time audio and video
| Feature | eturnal | LiveKit |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Video Conferencing | Video Conferencing |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Erlang | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, source | docker, kubernetes, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 340 | ★ 20,181 |
| First released | 2020 | 2021 |
| Replaces | Twilio STUN/TURN | Twilio, Agora |
Why pick each one
Choose eturnal if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Written in Erlang
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is eturnal or LiveKit better?
Neither is universally better. LiveKit has the larger community, while eturnal is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are eturnal and LiveKit free and open-source?
Yes. eturnal is licensed under Apache-2.0 and LiveKit under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run eturnal and LiveKit with Docker?
eturnal: yes. LiveKit: yes.