Phaser 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?
Phaser
Fast HTML5 game framework for browser games you host yourself
VS
PixiJS
Fast 2D WebGL rendering engine for browser games
| Feature | Phaser | PixiJS |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Game Engines & Frameworks | Game Engines & Frameworks |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | JavaScript | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, source | source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 40,098 | ★ 47,976 |
| First released | 2013 | 2013 |
| Replaces | Construct, GameMaker | Adobe Animate runtime |
Why pick each one
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 Phaser or PixiJS better?
Neither is universally better. PixiJS has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Phaser and PixiJS free and open-source?
Yes. Phaser is licensed under MIT and PixiJS under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Phaser and PixiJS with Docker?
Phaser: check the project docs for container support. PixiJS: check the project docs for container support.