eturnal vs MiroTalk SFU
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
MiroTalk SFU
Simple, secure, scalable real-time video conferences up to 4k,
| Feature | eturnal | MiroTalk SFU |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Video Conferencing | Video Conferencing |
| License | Apache-2.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | Erlang | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, source | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 340 | ★ 3,080 |
| First released | 2020 | 2020 |
| Replaces | Twilio STUN/TURN | — |
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
Choose MiroTalk SFU if…
- Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (3.1k GitHub stars)
- Written in JavaScript
Frequently asked questions
Is eturnal or MiroTalk SFU better?
Neither is universally better. MiroTalk SFU has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are eturnal and MiroTalk SFU free and open-source?
Yes. eturnal is licensed under Apache-2.0 and MiroTalk SFU under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run eturnal and MiroTalk SFU with Docker?
eturnal: yes. MiroTalk SFU: yes.