Pros of Jitsi Meet

• Fully open-source and self-hostable solution
• Supports large-scale video conferences with many participants
• Includes built-in features like screen sharing, chat, and recording

Cons of Jitsi Meet

• Steeper learning curve for customization and integration
• Less flexible API compared to OpenVidu
• May require more server resources for optimal performance

Code Comparison

OpenVidu:

var OV = new OpenVidu();
var session = OV.initSession();
session.connect(token)
    .then(() => console.log("Connected"))
    .catch(error => console.error(error));

Jitsi Meet:

const domain = 'meet.jit.si';
const options = {
    roomName: 'MyMeeting',
    width: 700,
    height: 700,
    parentNode: document.querySelector('#meet')
};
const api = new JitsiMeetExternalAPI(domain, options);

Both projects offer robust video conferencing solutions, but they cater to different use cases. OpenVidu provides a more developer-friendly API for custom integrations, while Jitsi Meet offers a complete, ready-to-use platform with a focus on large-scale meetings. The choice between them depends on specific project requirements and the level of customization needed.

Pros of BigBlueButton

• More comprehensive feature set for online learning, including whiteboard, breakout rooms, and polling
• Larger and more active community, leading to better support and more frequent updates
• Built-in LMS integrations, making it easier to use in educational settings

Cons of BigBlueButton

• Steeper learning curve and more complex setup compared to OpenVidu
• Higher resource requirements, which may lead to increased hosting costs
• Less flexibility for customization and integration into existing applications

Code Comparison

BigBlueButton (Ruby):

def create_meeting(meeting_name, moderator_password, attendee_password, welcome_message)
  create_meeting_url = bbb.create_meeting(meeting_name, {
    :moderatorPW => moderator_password,
    :attendeePW => attendee_password,
    :welcome => welcome_message
  })
  meeting_id = XmlSimple.xml_in(create_meeting_url)['meetingID'][0]
  return meeting_id
end

OpenVidu (JavaScript):

async function createSession() {
  const session = await openvidu.createSession();
  const connection = await session.createConnection();
  return {
    sessionId: session.sessionId,
    token: connection.token
  };
}

This comparison highlights the differences in complexity and language between the two projects, with BigBlueButton offering more built-in features but requiring more setup, while OpenVidu provides a simpler API for basic video conferencing functionality.

Pros of PeerJS

• Lightweight and focused solely on WebRTC peer-to-peer connections
• Simple API for quick implementation of peer-to-peer communication
• Works well for small-scale projects and prototypes

Cons of PeerJS

• Limited features compared to OpenVidu's comprehensive platform
• Less scalable for large-scale applications or complex use cases
• Lacks built-in recording and advanced room management features

Code Comparison

PeerJS:

const peer = new Peer();
peer.on('open', (id) => {
  const conn = peer.connect('remote-peer-id');
  conn.on('open', () => {
    conn.send('Hello!');
  });
});

OpenVidu:

const OV = new OpenVidu();
const session = OV.initSession();
session.connect(token).then(() => {
  const publisher = OV.initPublisher();
  session.publish(publisher);
});

Summary

PeerJS is a lightweight library focused on simple peer-to-peer WebRTC connections, making it ideal for small projects and quick implementations. OpenVidu, on the other hand, offers a more comprehensive platform with advanced features like recording and room management, making it better suited for larger, more complex applications. The code comparison shows that PeerJS has a simpler API for basic peer connections, while OpenVidu provides a more structured approach for managing sessions and publishers in a video conferencing context.

Pros of WebRTC-Experiment

• Extensive collection of WebRTC demos and examples
• Lightweight and easy to integrate into existing projects
• Active community and frequent updates

Cons of WebRTC-Experiment

• Less structured and organized compared to OpenVidu
• Limited built-in server-side functionality
• May require more manual configuration for complex use cases

Code Comparison

WebRTC-Experiment:

connection.openOrJoin('room-id', function(isRoomCreated, roomid, error) {
    if (error) {
        console.error(error);
    } else {
        console.log('Connected to room:', roomid);
    }
});

OpenVidu:

var OV = new OpenVidu();
var session = OV.initSession();
session.connect(token)
    .then(() => {
        console.log('Connection successful');
    })
    .catch(error => {
        console.error(error);
    });

WebRTC-Experiment offers a more straightforward approach to joining rooms, while OpenVidu provides a more structured and object-oriented API. OpenVidu's code is generally more verbose but offers better type safety and integration with its server-side components.

Pros of samples

• Provides a wide range of WebRTC examples and use cases
• Directly uses native WebRTC APIs, offering more flexibility and control
• Regularly updated to reflect the latest WebRTC standards and best practices

Cons of samples

• Requires more in-depth knowledge of WebRTC protocols and APIs
• Lacks built-in server-side components for signaling and media routing
• May require additional effort to implement production-ready features

Code Comparison

samples:

const peerConnection = new RTCPeerConnection(configuration);
const dataChannel = peerConnection.createDataChannel("myChannel");
peerConnection.onicecandidate = handleICECandidateEvent;
peerConnection.ontrack = handleTrackEvent;

openvidu:

const session = OV.initSession();
session.on('streamCreated', (event) => {
    session.subscribe(event.stream, 'subscriber');
});
session.connect(token, { clientData: 'user' });

The samples code demonstrates direct use of WebRTC APIs, while openvidu abstracts these details, providing a higher-level interface for managing WebRTC sessions and streams.

Pros of coturn

• Specialized TURN server with extensive protocol support (TURN, STUN, ICE)
• Lightweight and efficient, focusing solely on NAT traversal
• Highly configurable with numerous options for advanced use cases

Cons of coturn

• Requires more manual setup and integration compared to OpenVidu
• Limited to NAT traversal functionality, lacking video conferencing features
• Steeper learning curve for developers new to WebRTC

Code comparison

coturn configuration example:

listening-port=3478
tls-listening-port=5349
realm=example.com
server-name=turnserver
user=myuser:mypassword

OpenVidu configuration example:

var OV = new OpenVidu();
var session = OV.initSession();
session.connect(token)
    .then(() => console.log("Connected"))
    .catch(error => console.error(error));

Summary

coturn is a specialized TURN server offering robust NAT traversal capabilities, while OpenVidu provides a more comprehensive video conferencing solution. coturn excels in flexibility and efficiency for NAT traversal but requires more setup. OpenVidu offers an easier integration process with built-in video conferencing features, making it more suitable for developers seeking a quick implementation of video communication functionality.