Softwr

Databases · head to head

NATS vs Pusher

NATS logo

NATS

Databases

High-performance messaging system for cloud-native applications

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Pusher logo

Pusher

APIs

Realtime messaging API for building live features into apps

From
Free
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: NATS core NATS has no persistence at all, so messages are lost if no subscriber is listening; Pusher the free Sandbox plan is capped at 100 concurrent connections, which is quickly outgrown by production apps.
  • They diverge on capability: NATS covers Very low latency, Pusher covers Pub/sub channels.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 29 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which NATS and Pusher actually diverge.

Attributes where NATS and Pusher differ
AttributeNATSPusher
Pricing modelOpen source, no licence feefreemium
PlatformsLinux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetesweb, ios, android, api
CategoryDatabasesAPIs

Identical on both: starting price (Free), 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 NATS

  • Very low latency
  • JetStream
  • Single binary
  • Request-reply

Only in Pusher

  • Pub/sub channels
  • Presence channels
  • Client libraries
  • Webhooks
  • 24/7 monitoring
  • Priority support

What people use each for

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

NATS

  • Service-to-service messaging where latency is the binding constraintnot Pusher
  • Edge and IoT messaging where a lightweight broker mattersnot Pusher
  • Replacing a heavier broker when the workload does not need its guaranteesnot Pusher

Pusher

  • Adding live chat to a web or mobile appnot NATS
  • Showing realtime presence of online usersnot NATS
  • Pushing live notifications or dashboard updatesnot NATS
  • Building collaborative features without managing WebSocket serversnot NATS

Where each one falls short

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

NATS

  • Core NATS has no persistence at all, so messages are lost if no subscriber is listening
  • JetStream adds the durability but also the operational complexity NATS is chosen to avoid
  • A much smaller ecosystem than Kafka or RabbitMQ, with fewer connectors and integrations
  • Fewer people know it, so hiring and existing organisational knowledge favour the alternatives

Pusher

  • The free Sandbox plan is capped at 100 concurrent connections, which is quickly outgrown by production apps.
  • Pricing jumps sharply between tiers (e.g. $49 to $99 to $299), leaving few options for teams with moderate but growing usage.
  • Priority support with faster response times costs an additional $3,000/month on top of plan pricing.

Pricing, plan by plan

NATS

Free
  • NATSFree
    • Full functionality
    • No usage limits
    • Community support

Pusher

Free
  • SandboxFree
    • 200k messages/day
    • 100 concurrent connections
    • Standard support
  • Startup$49/month
    • 1M messages/day
    • 500 concurrent connections
  • Pro$99/month
    • 4M messages/day
    • 2,000 concurrent connections
  • Business$299/month
    • 10M messages/day
    • 5,000 concurrent connections
    • Premium support

Which should you pick?

Choose NATS if

  • You need very low latency.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes.
  • You also want jetstream.
NATS review

Choose Pusher if

  • You need pub/sub channels.
  • You want to start without paying.
  • You work on web, ios, android, api.
  • You also want presence channels.
Pusher review

Questions people ask

Is NATS or Pusher better?
Neither clearly leads. NATS starts at Free and Pusher at Free, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, NATS or Pusher?
NATS starts at Free and Pusher at Free.
Does NATS or Pusher run on more platforms?
NATS runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes. Pusher runs on web, ios, android, api.
Can I use NATS for free?
Both have a free tier, so you can try either at no cost before committing.
What is NATS best used for?
NATS is most often used for service-to-service messaging where latency is the binding constraint, edge and iot messaging where a lightweight broker matters, replacing a heavier broker when the workload does not need its guarantees. Of those, service-to-service messaging where latency is the binding constraint and edge and iot messaging where a lightweight broker matters are not what Pusher is typically brought in for.
What can NATS do that Pusher cannot?
NATS covers Very low latency, JetStream, Single binary, Request-reply. Pusher covers Pub/sub channels, Presence channels, Client libraries, Webhooks.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

NATS: Is NATS free?

Yes, open source and CNCF-graduated. Synadia sells a managed service.

Pusher: What does Pusher cost?

Pusher Channels offers a free Sandbox plan (200k messages/day, 100 connections) and paid plans starting at $49/month for Startup, scaling up through Pro, Business, and several higher tiers up to $1,199/month, plus custom Enterprise pricing.

Source
NATS: Does NATS persist messages?

Core NATS does not — it is fire-and-forget. JetStream adds persistence, streaming and replay when you need them.

Pusher: Can I change or cancel my plan?

Yes, customers can log into the dashboard and adjust their plan at any time, including upgrading, downgrading, or cancelling.

Source
NATS: NATS or Kafka?

NATS is far lighter and lower latency, and much simpler to run. Kafka is the answer when you need a durable replayable log and a large connector ecosystem.

Pusher: How is usage metered?

Usage is measured by concurrent connections and messages per day; a message counts both the publish and each delivery, so publishing one message to 50 subscribers counts as 51 messages.

Source
Share

Related pages

More on NATS

More on Pusher

Keep looking

Other head to heads