Softwr

Databases · head to head

NATS vs Soketi

NATS logo

NATS

Databases

High-performance messaging system for cloud-native applications

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: NATS core NATS has no persistence at all, so messages are lost if no subscriber is listening; 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: NATS covers Very low latency, Soketi covers Pusher protocol compatibility.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which NATS and Soketi actually diverge.

Attributes where NATS and Soketi differ
AttributeNATSSoketi
PlatformsLinux, macOS, Windows, Docker, KubernetesLinux, 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 NATS

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

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.

NATS

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

Soketi

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

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

NATS

Free
  • NATSFree
    • 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 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 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 NATS or Soketi better?
Neither clearly leads. NATS 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, NATS or Soketi?
NATS starts at Free and Soketi at Free.
Does NATS or Soketi run on more platforms?
NATS runs on Linux, macOS, Windows, Docker, Kubernetes. Soketi runs on Linux, macOS, Windows.
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 Soketi is typically brought in for.
What can NATS do that Soketi cannot?
NATS covers Very low latency, JetStream, Single binary, Request-reply. Soketi covers Pusher protocol compatibility, Presence and private channels, Horizontal scaling, App management backends.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

NATS: Is NATS free?

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

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.

NATS: Does NATS persist messages?

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

Soketi: Do I need to change my client code?

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

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.

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 NATS

More on Soketi

Keep looking

Other head to heads