Open Source WebRTC Media Server Comparison 2025–2026: LiveKit vs Janus vs mediasoup vs Jitsi

Building a WebRTC application is relatively straightforward when two users need to communicate directly. The architecture becomes much more complex when your application needs to support group video calls, virtual classrooms, webinars, live streaming, recording, screen sharing, or thousands of concurrent participants.

This is where a WebRTC media server becomes important.

Instead of having every participant establish a direct connection with every other participant, a media server can receive and selectively forward audio and video streams. For many multi-party applications, this means using a Selective Forwarding Unit (SFU) architecture.

Among the most widely considered open-source options are LiveKit, Janus, mediasoup, and Jitsi Videobridge. All four can be used to build real-time communication products, but they take very different approaches.

So, which one should you choose in 2025–2026?

The answer depends less on which project is "best" and more on what you are building, how much control you need, what your engineering team already knows, and how much infrastructure you want to manage yourself.

Quick Comparison: LiveKit vs Janus vs mediasoup vs Jitsi

Feature

LiveKit

Janus

mediasoup

Jitsi

Architecture

SFU

Modular WebRTC server

SFU

SFU

Primary language

Go

C

C++ + Node.js

Java/Kotlin ecosystem

Abstraction level

High

Medium

Low

High

Developer experience

Excellent

Moderate

Excellent for custom systems

Excellent for conferencing

Open source

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Self-hosting

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Built-in conferencing product

No, platform-oriented

No

No

Yes

Custom media control

High

Very high

Very high

Moderate

Signaling

Built into platform

Plugin/API based

Application-defined

Jitsi ecosystem

Best suited for

Modern RTC platforms

Specialized RTC integrations

Highly customized RTC apps

Video conferencing

Learning curve

Low–moderate

Moderate–high

Moderate–high

Moderate

Best for developers wanting

Complete RTC infrastructure

Protocol/media flexibility

Fine-grained control

Ready-made conferencing stack

The biggest difference is architectural philosophy.

LiveKit provides a more complete real-time platform around its SFU.

Janus provides a modular WebRTC gateway where functionality is exposed through plugins.

mediasoup gives developers a low-level SFU module that can be embedded into a larger Node.js application.

Jitsi provides an open-source conferencing ecosystem built around Jitsi Videobridge.

What Is a WebRTC Media Server?

WebRTC itself provides the technologies required for real-time audio, video, and data communication between browsers and applications. However, peer-to-peer communication becomes increasingly difficult as the number of participants grows.

Consider a video meeting with five participants.

With a pure peer-to-peer architecture, each participant may need to upload media to multiple other participants. As the number of participants increases, the bandwidth and connection requirements can become impractical.

An SFU changes this model.

Each participant sends their media to the SFU. The SFU then selectively forwards the required streams to other participants.

The server generally does not need to decode, mix, and re-encode every video stream. This makes SFUs attractive for applications where low latency and individual stream control are important.

SFU vs MCU

Two common approaches are:

SFU — Selective Forwarding Unit

Receives media streams and forwards selected streams to participants.

MCU — Multipoint Control Unit

Receives, decodes, mixes or composites streams, and sends processed output back to participants.

For modern multi-party WebRTC applications, SFUs are often preferred because they provide a strong balance between scalability, latency, and control.

1. LiveKit

LiveKit is an open-source WebRTC SFU designed as a broader real-time communication platform.

Its architecture is particularly attractive to teams that want to build applications around rooms, participants, tracks, data, recording, streaming, and real-time interactions without implementing every media infrastructure component themselves.

LiveKit's SFU is written in Go and uses Pion's WebRTC implementation. Its architecture is designed for horizontal scaling, with Redis used for distributed multi-node deployments.

Where LiveKit stands out

LiveKit provides a relatively high-level development experience compared with lower-level media frameworks.

It provides SDKs and infrastructure around the core media layer, making it easier to build products such as:

• Video conferencing platforms
• Virtual classrooms
• Telehealth applications
• Real-time collaboration tools
• Interactive live streaming
• Voice applications
• AI-powered voice and video agents

Another important advantage is its growing AI-oriented ecosystem.

LiveKit provides an Agents framework for building real-time AI agents that can participate in rooms and process audio, video, and other events.

LiveKit advantages

• Strong developer experience
• Modern SDK ecosystem
• Open-source server
• Self-hosting support
• Horizontal scaling
• Strong support for real-time audio, video, and data
• Suitable for AI-powered real-time applications
• Good fit for teams that want a relatively complete RTC platform

LiveKit limitations

LiveKit is opinionated.

That is not necessarily a disadvantage, but teams requiring extremely low-level control over every part of their media architecture may prefer mediasoup or Janus.

LiveKit also introduces more platform-level concepts than a minimal media server.

Choose LiveKit when

Choose LiveKit if you want to build a modern real-time product without assembling every component of your WebRTC infrastructure yourself.

It is particularly attractive when developer productivity, SDK support, scaling, and real-time AI capabilities are important.

2. Janus

Janus is one of the longest-established open-source WebRTC server projects in this comparison.

It is designed as a general-purpose WebRTC server and uses a plugin architecture. This makes Janus particularly interesting when your application needs specialized media or protocol functionality rather than a complete pre-built conferencing platform.

Janus is written primarily in C and is designed around a modular architecture.

How Janus works

Instead of forcing every application into one predefined model, Janus exposes functionality through plugins.

Depending on the application, developers can use different Janus plugins for capabilities such as:

• Audio/video rooms
• SIP integration
• Streaming
• Video rooms
• Recording-related workflows
• Custom WebRTC gateways

This makes Janus particularly useful when interoperability is a major requirement.

Janus advantages

• Mature WebRTC project
• Highly modular architecture
• Extensive plugin ecosystem
• Strong media-level control
• Useful for specialized WebRTC gateways
• Good interoperability potential
• Suitable for custom infrastructure

Janus limitations

Janus is not designed to be a complete application framework.

You will generally need to build more of the surrounding application yourself, including application logic, signaling workflows, authentication, user management, and product-specific functionality.

Its lower-level nature can also mean a steeper engineering curve for teams that simply want to launch a video conferencing product.

Choose Janus when

Janus is a strong candidate when your project needs:

• SIP or telephony integration
• Specialized WebRTC gateway functionality
• Custom media workflows
• Protocol interoperability
• Fine-grained control over the media infrastructure

If your team has strong systems and real-time media expertise, Janus can be extremely flexible.

3. mediasoup

mediasoup takes a different approach.

Rather than being a complete standalone conferencing platform, mediasoup is a low-level SFU implemented as a Node.js module with a C/C++ media worker.

This distinction is extremely important.

mediasoup is designed to become part of your application rather than being the application itself.

Its design intentionally leaves many application-level decisions to the developer.

What makes mediasoup different?

The project describes itself as an unopinionated Node.js module.

That means your application controls the surrounding architecture.

You decide:

• How signaling works
• How authentication works
• How users are managed
• How rooms are structured
• How application state is stored
• How APIs are designed
• How your frontend communicates with the backend
• How business logic interacts with the media layer

This makes mediasoup particularly attractive to product engineering teams that want maximum architectural control.

mediasoup advantages

• Very flexible
• Low-level API
• Excellent Node.js integration
• Strong control over media
• Supports simulcast and SVC
• Supports WebRTC and plain RTP
• Signaling-agnostic
• Suitable for custom communication products
• Strong fit for JavaScript/TypeScript backend teams

mediasoup limitations

The flexibility comes with additional engineering responsibility.

You are not simply installing mediasoup and receiving a complete conferencing application.

Your team needs to design and build the surrounding platform.

That can include:

• Signaling
• Authentication
• Room management
• User management
• APIs
• Scaling logic
• Monitoring
• Recording workflows
• Application-specific infrastructure

Choose mediasoup when

mediasoup is a particularly good option when your team wants to build a highly customized WebRTC product and already has strong Node.js or TypeScript expertise.

For a product company that wants complete control over its architecture, mediasoup can be an excellent foundation.

4. Jitsi Videobridge

Jitsi is somewhat different from the other three because it represents a broader open-source conferencing ecosystem.

At its core is Jitsi Videobridge (JVB), an SFU responsible for forwarding audio and video streams.

Jitsi also includes surrounding components such as Jitsi Meet and Jicofo, which together provide a more complete conferencing solution.

Where Jitsi stands out

If your primary requirement is to launch a conferencing solution rather than build an entirely custom RTC architecture from scratch, Jitsi is particularly compelling.

The ecosystem already provides many capabilities associated with video conferencing, including:

• Multi-party meetings
• Screen sharing
• Audio and video
• Chat
• Conference management
• Recording and streaming integrations
• Telephony integrations through the broader Jitsi ecosystem

Jitsi advantages

• Mature open-source conferencing ecosystem
• Complete conferencing application available
• Jitsi Videobridge is an SFU
• Strong community
• Self-hosting support
• WebRTC compatible
• Suitable for branded conferencing solutions
• Useful when time-to-market is important

Jitsi limitations

Jitsi is more opinionated than mediasoup.

If you need to create a completely different real-time communication product with unusual media workflows, you may find mediasoup or Janus more flexible.

Jitsi is particularly strong when your product resembles a conferencing platform.

Choose Jitsi when

Choose Jitsi when you want:

• Video conferencing
• Virtual meetings
• Open-source conferencing infrastructure
• A faster path to a working conferencing product
• Self-hosted meeting infrastructure
• An established conferencing ecosystem

LiveKit vs Janus vs mediasoup vs Jitsi: Detailed Comparison

1. Developer Experience

Winner: LiveKit

LiveKit generally provides the most platform-oriented developer experience.

Its SDKs and surrounding infrastructure reduce the amount of media infrastructure developers need to assemble themselves.

mediasoup comes next for teams comfortable with Node.js and real-time media architecture.

Jitsi is excellent if your application fits the conferencing model.

Janus provides enormous flexibility but requires more low-level understanding.

Ranking

1. LiveKit
2. Jitsi
3. mediasoup
4. Janus

2. Customization

Winner: mediasoup

If customization is your highest priority, mediasoup is difficult to beat.

Its low-level API and application-embedded architecture allow developers to design their own signaling and product architecture around the media layer.

Janus is also highly flexible, particularly for specialized media and gateway scenarios.

LiveKit provides substantial customization but follows a more opinionated platform architecture.

Jitsi is generally the least attractive option when the application needs to depart significantly from the conferencing model.

Ranking

1. mediasoup
2. Janus
3. LiveKit
4. Jitsi

3. Video Conferencing

Winner: Jitsi

For traditional video conferencing, Jitsi has a major advantage because it is not merely a media server.

The broader ecosystem already provides the components required for a conferencing experience.

LiveKit is a strong alternative when you want to build your own conferencing product and own the application experience.

Ranking

1. Jitsi
2. LiveKit
3. mediasoup
4. Janus

4. Custom Product Development

Winner: mediasoup / LiveKit

The choice depends on how much infrastructure you want to own.

Choose mediasoup when you want maximum control.

Choose LiveKit when you want a more complete RTC foundation and faster product development.

Ranking

1. mediasoup
2. LiveKit
3. Janus
4. Jitsi

5. Interoperability and Specialized Media Workflows

Winner: Janus

Janus is particularly strong when the WebRTC server needs to operate as a gateway or connect different real-time communication technologies.

Its plugin architecture makes it useful for specialized integrations.

Ranking

1. Janus
2. mediasoup
3. LiveKit
4. Jitsi

6. Time to Market

Winner: Jitsi / LiveKit

If you need a working conferencing product quickly, Jitsi can significantly reduce the amount of functionality you need to build from scratch.

LiveKit is attractive when you want a customized product but don't want to build your entire media infrastructure layer yourself.

mediasoup and Janus generally require more surrounding engineering.

Which WebRTC Media Server Should You Choose?

There is no universal winner.

The right choice depends on your product.

Choose LiveKit if:

• You want a modern WebRTC platform
• Developer experience matters
• You need real-time audio, video, and data
• You want self-hosting or managed deployment options
• You plan to integrate AI agents
• You need a foundation for a modern SaaS product

Choose Janus if:

• You need a modular WebRTC gateway
• SIP or telephony integration is important
• You need specialized media workflows
• Your engineering team wants low-level control
• Interoperability is a major requirement

Choose mediasoup if:

• You are building a highly customized RTC product
• Your backend is based on Node.js
• You want control over signaling and application architecture
• You need fine-grained media control
• Your team has strong WebRTC engineering expertise

Choose Jitsi if:

• Your primary product is video conferencing
• You want an open-source conferencing ecosystem
• You need a faster path to a working meeting platform
• You prefer a more complete solution rather than assembling everything yourself

What About Scalability?

It is tempting to compare media servers using a single "maximum users" number.

That is usually misleading.

The actual capacity of a WebRTC system depends on many variables:

• Number of participants per room
• Number of publishers
• Number of subscribers
• Video resolution
• Bitrate
• Codec
• Simulcast
• SVC
• Screen sharing
• Recording
• TURN usage
• Network bandwidth
• CPU
• Geographic distribution
• Number of rooms
• Room topology
• Infrastructure configuration

For example, a platform supporting thousands of mostly passive viewers has a very different architecture from a platform where hundreds of users simultaneously publish high-resolution video.

This is why benchmarking your actual workload is more valuable than relying on a generic "X users per server" claim.

SFU Architecture Matters More Than the Product Name

Choosing a media server is only one part of WebRTC architecture.

A production-grade system normally needs several additional components.

Client layer

Your web or mobile application handles:

• Camera and microphone access
• Device selection
• Video rendering
• Network adaptation
• User controls

Signaling layer

Signaling establishes communication sessions and exchanges information required to connect participants.

Media layer

The SFU handles media forwarding.

This is where LiveKit, Janus, mediasoup, or Jitsi Videobridge comes into the architecture.

NAT traversal

STUN and TURN infrastructure helps participants establish connections across different network environments.

Application backend

Your backend handles:

• Authentication
• Users
• Rooms
• Permissions
• Billing
• APIs
• Business logic

Observability

Production systems also need:

• Logs
• Metrics
• Quality monitoring
• Alerts
• Session analytics
• Infrastructure monitoring

This is why selecting a WebRTC media server should be treated as an architecture decision, not simply a library selection.

Open Source Does Not Mean Zero Cost

One of the biggest misconceptions about open-source WebRTC infrastructure is that the software itself is the entire cost.

It isn't.

Self-hosting an open-source WebRTC media server can eliminate licensing fees, but you still need to account for:

• Cloud infrastructure
• Bandwidth
• TURN servers
• Storage
• Recording infrastructure
• Monitoring
• DevOps
• Security
• Scaling
• Maintenance
• WebRTC engineering expertise

A small proof of concept may be inexpensive.

A globally distributed production communication platform is a very different proposition.

The total cost of ownership should therefore be evaluated before selecting a media server.

WebRTC Media Server Selection Checklist

Before selecting LiveKit, Janus, mediasoup, or Jitsi, answer these questions:

Product requirements

• Is this one-to-one calling?
• Multi-party conferencing?
• Live streaming?
• Webinar?
• Virtual classroom?
• Telemedicine?
• Social video?
• Enterprise collaboration?

Scale

• How many concurrent users?
• How many participants per room?
• How many simultaneous rooms?
• How many publishers?
• How many viewers?

Media requirements

• Audio only?
• HD video?
• Screen sharing?
• Recording?
• Broadcasting?
• Simulcast?
• SVC?
• RTMP/SRT/WHIP integration?

Engineering requirements

• What backend language does your team use?
• Do you need low-level media control?
• Do you want to build your own signaling?
• How much infrastructure can your team maintain?

Infrastructure

• Single region or multi-region?
• Self-hosted or managed?
• Kubernetes?
• Auto-scaling?
• Global TURN infrastructure?
• Dedicated media nodes?

Business requirements

• What is your expected growth?
• What is your infrastructure budget?
• Are compliance requirements involved?
• How much vendor or project dependency can you accept?

Final Verdict

There is no single for every application.

The decision is better summarized like this:

Your Requirement

Best Starting Point

Modern real-time communication platform

LiveKit

Highly customized RTC product

mediasoup

Specialized WebRTC gateway

Janus

Ready-to-use conferencing ecosystem

Jitsi

Maximum media-layer control

mediasoup / Janus

Faster product development

LiveKit / Jitsi

Node.js-centric custom application

mediasoup

Conferencing-first product

Jitsi

AI-powered real-time communication

LiveKit

SIP / gateway-oriented architecture

Janus

The most important takeaway is that LiveKit, Janus, mediasoup, and Jitsi solve different layers of the WebRTC problem.

If you need a complete real-time platform, LiveKit is an attractive starting point.

If you need a conferencing ecosystem, Jitsi is hard to ignore.

If you want to embed a low-level SFU into your own Node.js architecture, mediasoup offers significant control.

If your application requires a modular WebRTC gateway and specialized media integrations, Janus remains a strong option.

The right choice should ultimately come from your use case, media architecture, engineering capabilities, expected scale, and operational requirements rather than popularity alone.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is better, LiveKit or mediasoup?

LiveKit is generally better when you want a more complete real-time communication platform and faster development. mediasoup is better when you need lower-level control and want to design more of the application architecture yourself.

Is LiveKit open source?

Yes. LiveKit Server is an open-source WebRTC SFU that can be self-hosted.

Is Janus a WebRTC media server?

Yes. Janus is an open-source, general-purpose WebRTC server designed around a modular plugin architecture.

Is mediasoup a media server?

mediasoup provides the media-server/SFU layer as a Node.js module backed by native media workers. It is intentionally not a complete conferencing application.

Is Jitsi a WebRTC media server?

Jitsi is a broader open-source conferencing ecosystem. Jitsi Videobridge is the SFU/media-server component responsible for forwarding conference media.

Which WebRTC media server is best for video conferencing?

Jitsi is a strong choice when you want an established open-source conferencing ecosystem. LiveKit is another strong option when you want to build a more customized conferencing product.

Which WebRTC media server is best for custom applications?

mediasoup is particularly well suited to highly customized applications because it provides a low-level, application-embedded SFU architecture. LiveKit is also a strong choice when you want more platform-level functionality out of the box.

Does an open-source WebRTC media server eliminate infrastructure costs?

No. Open-source software can reduce licensing costs, but production deployments still require infrastructure, bandwidth, TURN, monitoring, storage, operations, and engineering resources.

Conclusion

Choosing between LiveKit, Janus, mediasoup, and Jitsi is ultimately an architecture decision.

Start with your product requirements, define the media topology, estimate your traffic and concurrency, identify your integration requirements, and then evaluate the media server against those constraints.

The best WebRTC infrastructure is not necessarily the project with the most features. It is the one that gives your engineering team the right balance of control, development speed, scalability, and operational complexity for the product you are building.