Softwr

Databases · head to head

Apache Pulsar vs Soketi

Apache Pulsar logo

Apache Pulsar

Databases

Cloud-native messaging and streaming with separated storage

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Soketi logo

Soketi

Developer Tools

Self-hosted, Pusher-compatible WebSockets server with a stalled maintenance record

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Apache Pulsar more components than Kafka: brokers, BookKeeper and ZooKeeper each need operating; Soketi maintenance has effectively stalled: the maintainer has said time is severely limited, releases are infrequent, and the community has been discussing whether the project is abandoned, which means security fixes may not arrive.
  • They diverge on capability: Apache Pulsar covers Separated storage, Soketi covers Pusher protocol compatibility.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Apache Pulsar and Soketi actually diverge.

Attributes where Apache Pulsar and Soketi differ
AttributeApache PulsarSoketi
PlatformsLinux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hostedLinux, macOS, Windows
CategoryDatabasesDeveloper Tools

Identical on both: starting price (Free), pricing model (Open source, no licence fee), free tier (Yes), user rating (Not yet rated).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Apache Pulsar

  • Separated storage
  • Queuing and streaming
  • Built-in multi-tenancy
  • Geo-replication

Only in Soketi

  • Pusher protocol compatibility
  • Presence and private channels
  • Horizontal scaling
  • App management backends
  • Webhooks
  • Prometheus metrics

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Apache Pulsar

  • Platforms needing both work queues and replayable streams without running two systemsnot Soketi
  • Multi-tenant messaging where isolation between teams is a requirementnot Soketi
  • Deployments where storage and traffic grow at genuinely different ratesnot Soketi

Soketi

  • A Laravel application that already uses Echo and wants to stop paying a hosted realtime providernot Apache Pulsar
  • Realtime notifications or presence indicators where data must not leave your own infrastructure for compliance reasonsnot Apache Pulsar
  • A local or CI environment that needs a Pusher-compatible server without hitting a paid accountnot Apache Pulsar
  • A high-connection-count application where hosted per-connection pricing has become the largest line in the infrastructure billnot Apache Pulsar

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Apache Pulsar

  • More components than Kafka: brokers, BookKeeper and ZooKeeper each need operating
  • Correspondingly harder to run well, and the expertise is rarer than Kafka expertise
  • A much smaller ecosystem of connectors, tooling and hiring pool than Kafka
  • The architectural advantages only pay off at a scale most deployments never reach

Soketi

  • Maintenance has effectively stalled: the maintainer has said time is severely limited, releases are infrequent, and the community has been discussing whether the project is abandoned, which means security fixes may not arrive.
  • Dependency drift on Node and uWebSockets.js will eventually force you to fork or migrate, and that cost is unbudgeted at the point you adopt it.
  • There is no commercial support to buy, so a production incident at three in the morning is entirely your problem with no escalation path.
  • Scaling beyond a single node needs Redis and careful configuration, and getting presence channels correct across nodes is a genuine source of subtle bugs.
  • It implements the Pusher protocol rather than tracking it, so any protocol feature Pusher adds later will not appear, and the compatibility guarantee slowly decays.

Pricing, plan by plan

Apache Pulsar

Free
  • Apache PulsarFree
    • Full functionality
    • No usage limits
    • Community support

Soketi

Free
  • SoketiFree
    • MIT licensed
    • Unlimited connections subject to your own hardware
    • No vendor billing

Which should you pick?

Choose Apache Pulsar if

  • You need separated storage.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted.
  • You also want queuing and streaming.
Apache Pulsar review

Choose Soketi if

  • You need pusher protocol compatibility.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, macOS, Windows.
  • You also want presence and private channels.
Soketi review

Questions people ask

Is Apache Pulsar or Soketi better?
Neither clearly leads. Apache Pulsar starts at Free and Soketi at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Apache Pulsar or Soketi?
Apache Pulsar starts at Free and Soketi at Free.
Does Apache Pulsar or Soketi run on more platforms?
Apache Pulsar runs on Linux, Docker, Kubernetes, Self-hosted. Soketi runs on Linux, macOS, Windows.
Can I use Apache Pulsar for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is Apache Pulsar best used for?
Apache Pulsar is most often used for platforms needing both work queues and replayable streams without running two systems, multi-tenant messaging where isolation between teams is a requirement, deployments where storage and traffic grow at genuinely different rates. Of those, platforms needing both work queues and replayable streams without running two systems and multi-tenant messaging where isolation between teams is a requirement are not what Soketi is typically brought in for.
What can Apache Pulsar do that Soketi cannot?
Apache Pulsar covers Separated storage, Queuing and streaming, Built-in multi-tenancy, Geo-replication. Soketi covers Pusher protocol compatibility, Presence and private channels, Horizontal scaling, App management backends.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Apache Pulsar: Is Apache Pulsar free?

Yes, open source under the Apache Software Foundation.

Soketi: Is Soketi still maintained?

Barely. The maintainer has stated that available time is very limited and releases have been sparse; treat it as community-maintained.

Apache Pulsar: Pulsar or Kafka?

Pulsar separates storage from compute and covers queuing and streaming in one system. Kafka has a far larger ecosystem and hiring pool. Most teams should have a specific reason before choosing Pulsar.

Soketi: Do I need to change my client code?

No. Pusher client SDKs and Laravel Echo work by changing the host, port and credentials.

Apache Pulsar: Why does separated storage matter?

Brokers hold no data, so adding or replacing one requires no rebalancing, and storage can grow without adding serving capacity.

Soketi: What does it cost?

Nothing in licence fees. It is MIT licensed; you pay for the server it runs on.

Soketi: What are people moving to?

Laravel Reverb for Laravel applications, and Sockudo, a Rust reimplementation, for others.

Share

Related pages

More on Apache Pulsar

More on Soketi

Keep looking

Other head to heads