Pros of jitsi-videobridge

• Lightweight and efficient, designed specifically for WebRTC conferencing
• Supports large-scale video conferences with many participants
• Active development and community support

Cons of jitsi-videobridge

• Limited media processing capabilities compared to Kurento
• Less flexibility for custom media pipelines and advanced scenarios
• Primarily focused on video conferencing, may not be suitable for other use cases

Code Comparison

Kurento Media Server (C++):

kurento::MediaPipeline pipeline;
auto webRtcEndpoint = pipeline.create<kurento::WebRtcEndpoint>();
auto recordEndpoint = pipeline.create<kurento::RecorderEndpoint>();
webRtcEndpoint->connect(recordEndpoint);

Jitsi Videobridge (Java):

Conference conference = videobridge.createConference();
Endpoint endpoint = conference.createEndpoint();
Channel channel = endpoint.createChannel(MediaType.VIDEO);
channel.setPayloadTypes(Arrays.asList(new PayloadTypePacketExtension(96, "VP8", 90000)));

The code snippets demonstrate the different approaches:

• Kurento uses a flexible pipeline model for media processing
• Jitsi Videobridge focuses on conference and endpoint management

Both projects serve different purposes within the WebRTC ecosystem, with Kurento offering more versatility for media processing and Jitsi Videobridge excelling in large-scale video conferencing scenarios.

Pros of OpenVidu

• Higher-level abstraction, making it easier to implement video conferencing features
• Provides ready-to-use client-side libraries for various platforms (Web, iOS, Android)
• Includes additional features like recording and screen sharing out-of-the-box

Cons of OpenVidu

• Less flexibility for custom media processing compared to Kurento
• Potentially higher resource usage due to additional abstraction layers
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers familiar with WebRTC basics

Code Comparison

Kurento (server-side pipeline creation):

pipeline.create('WebRtcEndpoint', function(error, webRtcEndpoint) {
  // Handle WebRTC endpoint
});

OpenVidu (session creation and management):

var OV = new OpenVidu();
var session = OV.initSession();
session.connect(token);

OpenVidu provides a higher-level API for managing WebRTC sessions, while Kurento offers more granular control over media pipelines. OpenVidu is built on top of Kurento, abstracting away some of the complexities but potentially limiting fine-grained control. Developers should choose based on their specific requirements for customization, ease of use, and desired features.

Pros of Janus-gateway

• Lightweight and modular architecture, allowing for easier customization and extension
• Supports a wider range of protocols, including WebRTC, RTMP, and SIP
• More active community and frequent updates

Cons of Janus-gateway

• Less comprehensive media processing capabilities compared to Kurento
• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to its plugin-based architecture
• Limited built-in recording and streaming features

Code Comparison

Janus-gateway (JavaScript client):

var janus = new Janus({
    server: 'wss://janus.example.com',
    success: function() {
        // Attach to plugin
    },
    error: function(error) {
        console.error(error);
    }
});

Kurento (JavaScript client):

var ws = new WebSocket('wss://kurento.example.com');
ws.onopen = function() {
    var kurentoClient = kurentoClient(ws);
    // Create pipeline and elements
};

Both projects are open-source WebRTC media servers, but they differ in their approach and focus. Janus-gateway is more flexible and supports a broader range of protocols, making it suitable for various use cases. Kurento, on the other hand, offers more advanced media processing capabilities out of the box, which can be beneficial for complex media manipulation scenarios. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of your project and your team's expertise.

Pros of media-server

• Lightweight and efficient, with lower resource usage
• More flexible architecture, allowing easier customization
• Better support for modern codecs like VP8 and VP9

Cons of media-server

• Less mature and less widely adopted than kurento-media-server
• Smaller community and fewer available resources/tutorials
• Limited built-in functionality compared to kurento-media-server's extensive features

Code Comparison

media-server:

MediaServer* server = MediaServer::Create();
MediaFrameListener* listener = new MyCustomListener();
server->AddMediaListener(listener);

kurento-media-server:

kurento::MediaPipeline pipeline;
auto webRtcEndpoint = pipeline.create<kurento::WebRtcEndpoint>();
webRtcEndpoint->connect(webRtcEndpoint);

The code snippets demonstrate that media-server offers a more low-level approach, allowing direct interaction with the media server and custom listeners. In contrast, kurento-media-server provides a higher-level abstraction with pre-defined components like WebRtcEndpoint, which simplifies common use cases but may limit flexibility for advanced scenarios.

Both projects aim to provide robust media server solutions, but they cater to different needs. media-server is more suitable for developers who require fine-grained control and customization, while kurento-media-server offers a more comprehensive out-of-the-box solution with a larger ecosystem.

Pros of mediasoup

• Designed for modern WebRTC applications with a focus on scalability and performance
• Supports multiple transport protocols (WebRTC, PLAIN, and PIPE)
• More active development and frequent updates

Cons of mediasoup

• Steeper learning curve due to its modular architecture
• Requires more manual configuration compared to Kurento's all-in-one approach
• Less extensive documentation and fewer examples available

Code Comparison

mediasoup (JavaScript):

const worker = await mediasoup.createWorker();
const router = await worker.createRouter({ mediaCodecs });
const transport = await router.createWebRtcTransport(webRtcTransportOptions);
const producer = await transport.produce({ kind: 'video', rtpParameters });

Kurento (Java):

KurentoClient kurento = KurentoClient.create();
MediaPipeline pipeline = kurento.createMediaPipeline();
WebRtcEndpoint webRtcEndpoint = new WebRtcEndpoint.Builder(pipeline).build();
webRtcEndpoint.connect(webRtcEndpoint);

Both mediasoup and Kurento are powerful media server solutions for WebRTC applications. mediasoup offers more flexibility and scalability, making it suitable for complex, high-performance scenarios. Kurento provides a more straightforward setup with its integrated approach, which can be beneficial for simpler use cases or developers new to WebRTC. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, development expertise, and scalability needs.

Pros of peerjs-server

• Lightweight and easy to set up for simple peer-to-peer connections
• Focuses specifically on WebRTC signaling, making it more straightforward for basic P2P use cases
• Active development and community support

Cons of peerjs-server

• Limited functionality compared to kurento-media-server's full media server capabilities
• Less suitable for complex media processing or streaming scenarios
• Lacks advanced features like media recording, mixing, or transcoding

Code Comparison

peerjs-server (JavaScript):

const { PeerServer } = require('peer');

const peerServer = PeerServer({ port: 9000, path: '/myapp' });

kurento-media-server (C++):

#include <kurento/MediaPipeline.hpp>
#include <kurento/WebRtcEndpoint.hpp>

kurento::MediaPipeline pipeline = kurento::MediaPipeline::create(kurento::getKurentoClient());
auto webRtcEndpoint = kurento::WebRtcEndpoint::create(pipeline);

The code snippets demonstrate the simplicity of setting up peerjs-server compared to the more complex initialization required for kurento-media-server. While peerjs-server is focused on peer connections, kurento-media-server offers a full media pipeline with various endpoints and processing capabilities.