StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. Application & Data
  3. Video Hosting
  4. Web And Video Conferencing
  5. SignalR vs WebRTC

SignalR vs WebRTC

OverviewDecisionsComparisonAlternatives

Overview

WebRTC
WebRTC
Stacks322
Followers538
Votes6
SignalR
SignalR
Stacks656
Followers1.2K
Votes146
GitHub Stars9.3K
Forks2.3K

SignalR vs WebRTC: What are the differences?

Introduction

In the realm of web communication, SignalR and WebRTC are two popular technologies that enable real-time data transfer between clients and servers. Although they serve a similar purpose, there are key differences that set them apart from each other.

  1. Data Communication Methodology: SignalR primarily relies on long polling, web sockets, or server-sent events to establish a connection and exchange data between clients and servers. It provides a real-time bidirectional communication channel that is easier to set up and manages connections efficiently. On the other hand, WebRTC operates through peer-to-peer connections, allowing direct communication between browsers without passing through a central server. It focuses on voice, video, and data streaming, making it ideal for real-time audio and video applications.

  2. Browser Support: SignalR offers broader browser support, including older versions, as it leverages various communication protocols. It is compatible with major web browsers, including Internet Explorer, Chrome, Firefox, and Safari. Contrarily, WebRTC has a narrower browser support as it requires specific browser implementations. It is well-supported on modern browsers such as Chrome, Firefox, and Opera, but limited on Internet Explorer and Safari.

  3. Native Mobile Integration: SignalR has excellent support for native mobile platforms like iOS and Android, making it ideal for developing mobile applications. It provides client libraries and APIs specifically designed for native mobile integration, allowing developers to easily incorporate real-time features. WebRTC, on the other hand, is primarily focused on web-based applications and lacks direct native mobile support. For mobile applications, developers often need to wrap WebRTC functionalities within native wrappers or use hybrid frameworks.

  4. Security Considerations: SignalR provides built-in security measures, including encryption, authentication, and authorization options. It offers various transport protocols with TLS/SSL support, ensuring data privacy and integrity. WebRTC also incorporates security measures in its design, such as encryption for media streams, but it lacks full control over network security due to its peer-to-peer nature. Developers may need to implement additional security measures on top of WebRTC to ensure end-to-end security.

  5. Usage Scenario: SignalR is primarily used for building real-time web applications that require instant updates, notifications, and chat functionality. It is suitable for scenarios where multiple clients need to receive real-time updates from a central server. On the other hand, WebRTC is specifically designed for real-time audio and video communication, including voice calls, video calls, and video conferences. It excels in scenarios that demand high-quality audio/video streaming with low latency.

  6. Scalability and Server Load: SignalR is well-suited for scenarios that demand high scalability with more extensive server requirements. Its server manages the connections and distributes updates to clients efficiently, making it suitable for applications with a large number of simultaneous users. WebRTC, being a peer-to-peer technology, puts less load on the server as media streams are directly transmitted between clients. It is more suitable for small-scale applications or scenarios where minimizing server load is crucial.

In summary, SignalR offers a versatile real-time communication solution with broader browser support and native mobile integration, making it suitable for general real-time web applications. On the other hand, WebRTC specializes in real-time audio and video communication with its peer-to-peer architecture, providing higher quality multimedia streaming. The choice between SignalR and WebRTC depends on the specific requirements of the application and the desired communication functionality.

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)
or
Manual

Advice on WebRTC, SignalR

Ritwik
Ritwik

May 27, 2020

Needs adviceonWebRTCWebRTCAmazon ChimeAmazon ChimeAgoraAgora

Hello. So, I wanted to make a decision on whether to use WebRTC or Amazon Chime for a conference call (meeting). My plan is to build an app with features like video broadcasting, and the ability for all the participants to talk and chat. I have used Agora's web SDK for video broadcasting, and Socket.IO for chat features. As I read the comparison between Amazon Chime and WebRTC, it further intrigues me on what I should use given my scenario? Is there any way that so many related technologies could be a hindrance to the other? Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Ritwik Neema

463k views463k
Comments

Detailed Comparison

WebRTC
WebRTC
SignalR
SignalR

It is a free, open project that enables web browsers with Real-Time Communications (RTC) capabilities via simple JavaScript APIs. The WebRTC components have been optimized to best serve this purpose.

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.

Statistics
GitHub Stars
-
GitHub Stars
9.3K
GitHub Forks
-
GitHub Forks
2.3K
Stacks
322
Stacks
656
Followers
538
Followers
1.2K
Votes
6
Votes
146
Pros & Cons
Pros
  • 3
    OpenSource
  • 2
    No Download
  • 1
    You can write anything around it, because it's a protoc
Pros
  • 32
    Supports .NET server
  • 25
    Real-time
  • 18
    Free
  • 16
    Fallback to SSE, forever frame, long polling
  • 15
    WebSockets
Cons
  • 2
    Expertise hard to get
  • 2
    Requires jQuery
  • 1
    Weak iOS and Android support
  • 1
    Big differences between ASP.NET and Core versions
Integrations
No integrations available
.NET
.NET

What are some alternatives to WebRTC, SignalR?

Firebase

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.

Discord

Discord

Discord is a modern free voice & text chat app for groups of gamers. Our resilient Erlang backend running on the cloud has built in DDoS protection with automatic server failover.

Socket.IO

Socket.IO

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

Skype

Skype

Skype’s text, voice and video make it simple to share experiences with the people that matter to you, wherever they are.

PubNub

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

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

Zoom

Zoom

Zoom unifies cloud video conferencing, simple online meetings, and cross platform group chat into one easy-to-use platform. Our solution offers the best video, audio, and screen-sharing experience across Zoom Rooms, Windows, Mac, iOS, Android, and H.323/SIP room systems.

Google Meet

Google Meet

It is the business-oriented version of Google's Hangouts platform and is suitable for businesses of all sizes. It allows users to dial in phone numbers to access meetings, thus enabling users with slow internet connection to call in.

Ably

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.

Jitsi

Jitsi

Jitsi (acquired by 8x8) is a set of open-source projects that allows you to easily build and deploy secure videoconferencing solutions. At the heart of Jitsi are Jitsi Videobridge and Jitsi Meet, which let you have conferences on the internet, while other projects in the community enable other features such as audio, dial-in, recording, and simulcasting.

Related Comparisons

Bootstrap
Materialize

Bootstrap vs Materialize

Laravel
Django

Django vs Laravel vs Node.js

Bootstrap
Foundation

Bootstrap vs Foundation vs Material UI

Node.js
Spring Boot

Node.js vs Spring-Boot

Liquibase
Flyway

Flyway vs Liquibase