Centrifugo vs Rocket.Chat
| Tagline | Language-agnostic real-time messaging server over WebSocket and SSE | Fully customizable open-source communications platform and Slack alternative |
| Category | Team Chat & Collaboration | Team Chat & Collaboration |
| Replaces | Slack, Microsoft Teams | Slack, Microsoft Teams |
| GitHub stars | 10k | 46k |
| Language | Go | TypeScript |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 3/5 Moderate |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual | One-Click Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 2 days ago | today |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
Centrifugo
- Developer-facing infrastructure component, not an end-user chat application; requires custom UI.
- Managed hosting (Centrifugal Cloud) is still early and not yet a full Pusher replacement in pricing.
- Persistent message storage requires an external database; Centrifugo only provides a short-term history buffer.
- No built-in admin UI for channel management or user monitoring beyond basic metrics.
Rocket.Chat
- Resource-heavy (Node.js + MongoDB) and can be slow at scale on modest hardware
- Some enterprise features (engagement dashboard, scalability, advanced auth) require a paid plan
- UI can feel cluttered compared to Slack
- Mobile apps have historically lagged the web client in polish
Bottom line
Both are a similar lift to self-host; choose Rocket.Chat for the larger community and ecosystem. Rocket.Chat has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
Rocket.Chat
Fully customizable open-source communications platform and Slack alternative