MiroTalk P2P vs MiroTalk SFU
Both are self-hosted communication - video conferencing projects. This page compares how well each one is actually maintained — the part you cannot see from a feature list.
| MiroTalk P2P | MiroTalk SFU | |
|---|---|---|
| Health score | 56/100 | 58/100 |
| Commits (11 mo) | 510 | 689 |
| Commits (last 3 mo) | 96 | 156 |
| Stars | 4.8k | 3.1k |
| Latest release | none tagged | none tagged |
| Licence | AGPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Built with | Nodejs, Docker | Nodejs, Docker |
| Typical RAM | 1 GB | 1 GB |
MiroTalk P2P
Simple, secure, fast real-time video conferences up to 4k and 60fps, compatible with all browsers and platforms.
Maintained, but at a slower pace than the leaders in its category.
Commit activity more than 64% of tracked projects; popularity more than 66%. How this is calculated.
Commits, last 11 months
MiroTalk SFU
Simple, secure, scalable real-time video conferences up to 4k, compatible with all browsers and platforms.
Maintained, but at a slower pace than the leaders in its category.
Commit activity more than 72% of tracked projects; popularity more than 58%. How this is calculated.
Commits, last 11 months
How to read this
Everything above is measured, not opinion: commit counts and release dates come from the public repositories, and the health score ranks each project against all 1352 projects we track. Read the full method.
What this comparison deliberately does not do is tell you which has the better feature set. Maintenance health tells you which project will still be receiving security fixes in two years. Decide that first, then compare features on the projects that survive the filter.
See every option in this category: self-hosted communication - video conferencing.