Pros of OBS Studio

• More comprehensive feature set for video production and streaming
• Larger community and ecosystem of plugins/extensions
• Cross-platform support (Windows, macOS, Linux)

Cons of OBS Studio

• Higher resource usage and system requirements
• Steeper learning curve for new users
• Less focused on server-side streaming capabilities

Code Comparison

SRS (server-side streaming):

SrsRtmpConn* conn = new SrsRtmpConn(this, skt, ip);
if ((err = conn->start()) != srs_success) {
    srs_freep(conn);
    return srs_error_wrap(err, "start conn");
}

OBS Studio (client-side streaming):

bool OBSBasic::StartStreaming()
{
    if (outputHandler->StreamingActive())
        return false;
    if (!outputHandler->StartStreaming(service))
        return false;
    return true;
}

SRS focuses on server-side RTMP connections, while OBS Studio handles client-side streaming initiation. SRS is more lightweight and specialized for streaming server functionality, whereas OBS Studio provides a full-featured streaming and recording application with a graphical interface.

Pros of FFmpeg

• Extensive multimedia processing capabilities, supporting a wide range of formats and codecs
• Robust command-line interface with powerful options for complex operations
• Large, active community and extensive documentation

Cons of FFmpeg

• Steeper learning curve due to its vast feature set
• Can be resource-intensive for certain operations
• Less focused on streaming-specific functionality compared to SRS

Code Comparison

FFmpeg (transcoding example):

ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -c:v libx264 -preset slow -crf 22 -c:a copy output.mp4

SRS (streaming configuration):

listen              1935;
max_connections     1000;
srs_log_tank        file;
srs_log_file        ./objs/srs.log;

Summary

FFmpeg is a comprehensive multimedia framework with broad capabilities, while SRS is more focused on streaming solutions. FFmpeg excels in versatility and format support, but may require more expertise to use effectively. SRS offers a more streamlined approach for streaming-specific tasks, potentially with a gentler learning curve for those applications.

Pros of mediamtx

• Written in Go, offering better performance and easier deployment
• Supports a wider range of protocols, including WebRTC and HLS
• More lightweight and focused on streaming functionality

Cons of mediamtx

• Less mature project with fewer contributors and stars on GitHub
• Limited documentation compared to SRS
• Fewer advanced features and customization options

Code Comparison

mediamtx (Go):

type RTSPServer struct {
    rtspAddress string
    sessions    map[string]*RTSPSession
    mutex       sync.Mutex
}

SRS (C++):

class SrsRtspStack : public ISrsCoroutineHandler
{
private:
    SrsRtspConn* conn;
    SrsRequest* req;
    std::string rtsp_tcUrl;
};

Summary

mediamtx is a lightweight, Go-based streaming server with support for multiple protocols, while SRS is a more comprehensive, C++-based solution with extensive features and documentation. mediamtx may be easier to deploy and offers better performance for specific use cases, but SRS provides a more mature ecosystem with broader functionality and community support.

Pros of Ant-Media-Server

• More comprehensive WebRTC support, including data channels and screen sharing
• Built-in adaptive bitrate streaming for improved performance
• Integrated user management and authentication system

Cons of Ant-Media-Server

• Less flexible configuration options compared to SRS
• Higher resource consumption, especially for large-scale deployments
• Steeper learning curve for beginners due to more complex architecture

Code Comparison

Ant-Media-Server (Java):

@RestController
public class StreamsSourceRestService {
    @GetMapping("/broadcast/getList/{offset}/{size}")
    public List<Broadcast> getBroadcastList(@PathVariable int offset, @PathVariable int size) {
        return dataStore.getBroadcastList(offset, size, null, null, null);
    }
}

SRS (C++):

SrsHttpServeMux* http_api_mux = new SrsHttpServeMux();
http_api_mux->handle("/api/v1/streams", new SrsGoApiStreams());
SrsGoApiStreams::serve_http(ISrsHttpResponseWriter* w, ISrsHttpMessage* r) {
    SrsJsonObject* obj = SrsJsonAny::object();
    obj->set("streams", SrsJsonAny::array());
    return srs_api_response(w, r, obj);
}

Both projects offer robust streaming solutions, but Ant-Media-Server provides more out-of-the-box features for WebRTC and adaptive streaming, while SRS offers greater flexibility and lower resource usage. The code examples showcase the different approaches: Ant-Media-Server uses Java with Spring Boot for RESTful APIs, while SRS employs C++ for its HTTP API implementation.

Pros of webrtc

• Pure Go implementation, offering better performance and easier integration in Go projects
• Focused specifically on WebRTC, providing a more specialized and comprehensive solution
• Active community with frequent updates and contributions

Cons of webrtc

• Limited to WebRTC protocol, while SRS supports multiple streaming protocols
• Lacks some of the advanced features and tools that SRS provides for streaming
• May require more custom development for full-featured streaming applications

Code Comparison

SRS (C++):

SrsRtcConnection::SrsRtcConnection(SrsRtcServer* s, const SrsContextId& cid)
{
    server = s;
    cid_ = cid;
    req = NULL;
    sendonly_skt = NULL;
}

webrtc (Go):

type PeerConnection struct {
    mu             sync.RWMutex
    configuration  Configuration
    currentLocalDescription  *SessionDescription
    pendingLocalDescription  *SessionDescription
    currentRemoteDescription *SessionDescription
}

Both projects use different languages and approaches, with SRS focusing on a broader range of streaming protocols and webrtc specializing in WebRTC implementation. The code snippets show the core connection structures for each project, highlighting their different focuses and implementations.

Pros of go2rtc

• Lightweight and efficient, designed specifically for real-time communication
• Supports a wide range of protocols, including WebRTC, RTSP, RTMP, and more
• Easy to set up and configure, with a simple YAML configuration file

Cons of go2rtc

• Less mature and less widely adopted compared to SRS
• Limited documentation and community support
• Fewer advanced features and customization options

Code Comparison

go2rtc configuration example:

streams:
  camera1: rtsp://admin:password@192.168.1.123:554/stream
  camera2: rtsp://192.168.1.124:554/h264Preview_01_main

SRS configuration example:

listen              1935;
max_connections     1000;
srs_log_tank        file;
srs_log_file        ./objs/srs.log;

http_server {
    enabled         on;
    listen          8080;
}

vhost __defaultVhost__ {
}

Both projects aim to provide streaming solutions, but go2rtc focuses on real-time communication with a simpler configuration, while SRS offers a more comprehensive streaming server with advanced features and broader protocol support. go2rtc may be preferable for lightweight, real-time applications, while SRS is better suited for large-scale, feature-rich streaming deployments.