Pulsar vs SignalR

Overview

SignalR

Stacks656

Followers1.2K

Votes146

GitHub Stars9.3K

Forks2.3K

Apache Pulsar

Stacks119

Followers199

Votes24

Pulsar vs SignalR: What are the differences?

Introduction: Pulsar and SignalR are both messaging frameworks used for real-time communication in web applications. While they serve a similar purpose, there are key differences between the two that developers should consider when choosing the right solution for their project.

Architecture: Pulsar is designed as a multi-tenant, persistent messaging system that allows for message durability and scalability, making it suitable for use cases that require high availability and fault tolerance. In contrast, SignalR is primarily focused on real-time web functionality and provides features such as bi-directional communication and client-server communication.
Language Support: Pulsar supports various languages such as Java, C++, Python, and Go, offering developers flexibility in choosing a language that best fits their project requirements. On the other hand, SignalR is predominantly used in the .NET ecosystem, leveraging technologies like C# and ASP.NET to enable real-time web functionality.
Message Distribution: Pulsar uses a pub-sub messaging pattern to allow for message distribution to multiple subscribers, enabling efficient communication across a large number of clients. SignalR, on the other hand, focuses on establishing a connection between a single client and server for real-time communication, making it suitable for scenarios where direct client-server interactions are key.
Scalability: Pulsar is known for its horizontal scalability, allowing it to handle a high volume of messages and clients by distributing the load across multiple nodes in a cluster. In comparison, while SignalR supports scaling out by connecting to multiple server instances, it may require additional configurations and considerations to achieve the same level of scalability as Pulsar.
Deployment Options: Pulsar offers both self-managed deployments and a fully managed cloud service, providing developers with the flexibility to choose the deployment option that aligns with their infrastructure and resource requirements. SignalR, on the other hand, is often deployed within the context of a .NET application, which may require specific hosting environments or configurations.

In Summary, Pulsar and SignalR differ in their architecture, language support, message distribution, scalability, and deployment options, offering developers distinct features and capabilities for real-time communication in web applications.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Detailed Comparison

SignalR	Apache Pulsar
SignalR allows bi-directional communication between server and client. Servers can now push content to connected clients instantly as it becomes available. SignalR supports Web Sockets, and falls back to other compatible techniques for older browsers. SignalR includes APIs for connection management (for instance, connect and disconnect events), grouping connections, and authorization.	Apache Pulsar is a distributed messaging solution developed and released to open source at Yahoo. Pulsar supports both pub-sub messaging and queuing in a platform designed for performance, scalability, and ease of development and operation.
-	Unified model supporting pub-sub messaging and queuing; Easy scalability to millions of topics; Native multi-datacenter replication; Multi-language client API; Guaranteed data durability; Scalable distributed storage leveraging Apache BookKeeper
Statistics
GitHub Stars 9.3K	GitHub Stars -
GitHub Forks 2.3K	GitHub Forks -
Stacks 656	Stacks 119
Followers 1.2K	Followers 199
Votes 146	Votes 24
Pros & Cons
Pros 32 Supports .NET server 25 Real-time 18 Free 16 Fallback to SSE, forever frame, long polling 15 WebSockets Cons 2 Requires jQuery 2 Expertise hard to get 1 Weak iOS and Android support 1 Big differences between ASP.NET and Core versions	Pros 7 Simple 4 Scalable 3 High-throughput 2 Multi-tenancy 2 Geo-replication Cons 1 Only Supports Topics 1 No guaranteed dliefvery 1 No one and only one delivery 1 LImited Language support(6) 1 Very few commercial vendors for support
Integrations
.NET	No integrations available

What are some alternatives to SignalR, Apache Pulsar?

Firebase

Firebase is a cloud service designed to power real-time, collaborative applications. Simply add the Firebase library to your application to gain access to a shared data structure; any changes you make to that data are automatically synchronized with the Firebase cloud and with other clients within milliseconds.

Socket.IO

It enables real-time bidirectional event-based communication. It works on every platform, browser or device, focusing equally on reliability and speed.

Kafka

Kafka is a distributed, partitioned, replicated commit log service. It provides the functionality of a messaging system, but with a unique design.

RabbitMQ

RabbitMQ gives your applications a common platform to send and receive messages, and your messages a safe place to live until received.

Celery

Celery is an asynchronous task queue/job queue based on distributed message passing. It is focused on real-time operation, but supports scheduling as well.

PubNub

PubNub makes it easy for you to add real-time capabilities to your apps, without worrying about the infrastructure. Build apps that allow your users to engage in real-time across mobile, browser, desktop and server.

Pusher

Pusher is the category leader in delightful APIs for app developers building communication and collaboration features.

Amazon SQS

Transmit any volume of data, at any level of throughput, without losing messages or requiring other services to be always available. With SQS, you can offload the administrative burden of operating and scaling a highly available messaging cluster, while paying a low price for only what you use.

NSQ

NSQ is a realtime distributed messaging platform designed to operate at scale, handling billions of messages per day. It promotes distributed and decentralized topologies without single points of failure, enabling fault tolerance and high availability coupled with a reliable message delivery guarantee. See features & guarantees.

Ably

Ably offers WebSockets, stream resume, history, presence, and managed third-party integrations to make it simple to build, extend, and deliver digital realtime experiences at scale.

Related Comparisons

Pulsar vs SignalR: What are the differences?

Architecture: Pulsar is designed as a multi-tenant, persistent messaging system that allows for message durability and scalability, making it suitable for use cases that require high availability and fault tolerance. In contrast, SignalR is primarily focused on real-time web functionality and provides features such as bi-directional communication and client-server communication.
Language Support: Pulsar supports various languages such as Java, C++, Python, and Go, offering developers flexibility in choosing a language that best fits their project requirements. On the other hand, SignalR is predominantly used in the .NET ecosystem, leveraging technologies like C# and ASP.NET to enable real-time web functionality.
Message Distribution: Pulsar uses a pub-sub messaging pattern to allow for message distribution to multiple subscribers, enabling efficient communication across a large number of clients. SignalR, on the other hand, focuses on establishing a connection between a single client and server for real-time communication, making it suitable for scenarios where direct client-server interactions are key.
Scalability: Pulsar is known for its horizontal scalability, allowing it to handle a high volume of messages and clients by distributing the load across multiple nodes in a cluster. In comparison, while SignalR supports scaling out by connecting to multiple server instances, it may require additional configurations and considerations to achieve the same level of scalability as Pulsar.
Deployment Options: Pulsar offers both self-managed deployments and a fully managed cloud service, providing developers with the flexibility to choose the deployment option that aligns with their infrastructure and resource requirements. SignalR, on the other hand, is often deployed within the context of a .NET application, which may require specific hosting environments or configurations.

Pulsar vs SignalR

Overview