StreamChat, developed by GetStream, is a powerful and user-friendly solution for integrating chat functionalities into web and mobile applications. However, is it truly the best option available? In this blog post, we will delve into the features offered by StreamChat and highlight some compelling alternatives that can meet your requirements.
A brief synopsis of stream chat: from activity feeds to real-time chat
Originally recognized for its exceptional Activity Feeds API, GetStream expanded its horizons by venturing into the realm of real-time chat. StreamChat, their chat API product, empowers developers to seamlessly incorporate real-time chat features into their applications.
While StreamChat offers an extensive range of features including Messaging API, Chat SDKs, user management, message moderation, channel management, file sharing, and push notifications, it is important to note that their primary focus lies in providing developers with raw APIs to build upon.
This emphasis on developer-centric solutions, while commendable, may leave some businesses seeking more polished options tailored to their specific needs. Let's explore more on common limitations and viable alternatives.
Top 5 alternatives to StreamChat
1. CometChat
CometChat is a fully managed chat and calling platform designed for businesses that want to ship rich, production-ready chat experiences quickly, without excessive custom development. Unlike SDK-first platforms such as Stream, CometChat focuses on reducing time-to-market while still offering deep extensibility when required.
Why teams choose CometChat:
Multiple integration methods
CometChat supports a range of integration approaches, including a no-code widget builder for effortless in-app chat deployment and a low-code UI Kit builder that allows teams to visually customize chat components, export code, and deploy with minimal engineering effort.
Comprehensive UI Kits
Production-ready, modular UI Kits for React, React Native, Flutter, Angular, Vue, Android, and iOS enable faster launches with a polished, consumer-grade chat experience out of the box.
APIs and SDKs for deep customization
For teams that require full control or complex workflows, CometChat’s SDKs provide flexibility without forcing developers to build foundational chat features from scratch.
Advanced moderation capabilities
CometChat includes AI-powered contextual moderation that goes beyond keyword or regex filtering. This enables detection of harassment, hate speech, bullying, and circumvention attempts by analyzing context and intent, not just raw text.
Unified real-time engagement
Chat, voice, and video calling are bundled into a single product and pricing model, eliminating the need to manage separate services or plans.
Predictable, scalable pricing
Lower entry tiers and transparent scaling make CometChat more accessible for early-stage teams while still supporting enterprise-scale deployments.
How it compares to Stream:
Integration flexibility: CometChat offers no-code, low-code, and full SDK options, whereas Stream is primarily SDK-driven.
Moderation depth: Advanced AI moderation is available within CometChat’s plans, while Stream reserves comparable capabilities for higher tiers or add-ons.
Cost and usability: CometChat’s unified pricing and broader inclusions reduce friction for teams that want production-ready chat without committing to high minimum MAU tiers.
Schedule a personalized demo today to see how CometChat can fit your needs.
Read what successful customers have to say about CometChat
2. Sendbird
Why teams evaluate Sendbird:
Strong messaging features with built-in moderation, reactions, threads, and delivery receipts.
Enterprise-ready capabilities such as data export and analytics dashboards.
Key differences from Stream:
Concurrency and capacity: Sendbird’s concurrency limits and pricing tiers differ; scaling costs can grow with PCC overages.
UI ecosystem: While Sendbird offers UI kits, they are not as extensive across frameworks as some competitors.
Use case fit: Good for teams that want a balance between infrastructure control and application-level features.
Sendbird is often compared directly with Stream for mid-market to enterprise apps, though its pricing and tier structure may be heavier for smaller or early-stage teams.
Additional reading
3. PubNub
PubNub is a real-time infrastructure platform with pub/sub messaging and optional chat SDK features.
Why teams choose PubNub:
Excellent for applications requiring ultra-low latency and real-time data beyond just chat (e.g., live dashboards, multiplayer games).
Built-in presence, message history, and distributed edge network.
How it compares to Stream:
PubNub’s chat features are less opinionated and UI-agnostic compared to Stream’s full-featured SDKs and UI kits, meaning more custom development is required for polished chat UI.
PubNub focuses more on real-time data streams than a complete chat solution, so teams with broader real-time needs may find it suitable.
Additional reading
4. Twilio Conversations
Twilio’s Conversations API is part of a broader communications suite that includes SMS, WhatsApp, and programmable chat.
Why teams choose Twilio:
Omnichannel capabilities allow combining in-app chat with SMS, WhatsApp, and other channels in a unified API.
Transparent, usage-based pricing that scales with actual active users.
Strong uptime guarantees and global infrastructure.
Differences compared to Stream:
Twilio’s pricing is consumption-based with flexibility but can be more complex if multiple channels are used.
Developer experience is strong, though UI component libraries are less productized than Stream’s or CometChat’s. Stream
5. Agora / ZEGOCLOUD
Agora and similar platforms (like ZEGOCLOUD) are known for real-time voice and video APIs but also support chat messaging.
Why teams consider Agora/ZEGOCLOUD:
Best-in-class audio and video quality with strong global networks.
Capable chat SDKs that integrate tightly with video/voice experiences.
Hybrid and on-premise options available for regulated industries.
How they compare to Stream:
Focused strength in live real-time communications, with chat as a complementary capability.
Pricing models vary based on usage and features, particularly for video, which can be pay-as-you-go.
6. Ably
Ably is a real-time messaging infrastructure platform engineered for guaranteed delivery and low-latency sync across regions.
Why teams use Ably:
Supports real-time pub/sub messaging, presence, and message history.
99.999% uptime SLA and robust compliance capabilities.
Excellent for applications that require real-time events beyond chat (e.g., live updates, notifications). Stream
Comparison with Stream:
Ably excels at real-time infrastructure and global delivery, but does not provide UI kits or higher-level chat components out of the box.
Integrations like voice and video require external services.
7. TalkJS
TalkJS provides a lightweight, out-of-the-box messaging experience with pre-built UIs and easy web integration.
Why teams pick TalkJS:
Rapid integration with a ready-made interface and core messaging capabilities.
Good for MVPs, marketplaces, and simpler chat requirements.
How it compares to Stream:
TalkJS is simpler and less extensible than Stream or CometChat, with fewer SDKs and limited voice/video support.
Better suited for basic chat use cases where advanced features are not critical. Stream
8. Socket.IO (Self-hosted)
Socket.IO is an open-source library enabling real-time bidirectional communication between server and client.
Why teams use Socket.IO:
Fine-grained control over the real-time stack.
Can be used to build custom chat systems without vendor lock-in.
Comparison with managed services:
Requires significant backend setup, hosting, and maintenance.
Not a fully managed chat platform, but ideal for teams with unique or deeply customized requirements.
9. Firebase / Firestore Realtime Database
Google’s Firebase gives developers a backend-as-a-service with real-time database syncing ideal for chat data.
Why teams consider Firebase:
Realtime Database and Firestore provide realtime sync with offline support and broad platform SDKs.
Tight integration with other Firebase services like authentication and analytics. Reddit
How it compares to Stream:
Firebase is more of a general real-time data store than a full chat platform. Developers must implement chat logic and UI.
Good for teams building custom flows without vendor constraints.
How to choose among alternatives
When evaluating chat SDK and API options beyond Stream, consider the following:
Time to market: Solutions with pre-built UI kits like CometChat and TalkJS reduce engineering effort.
Feature breadth: Platforms with built-in moderation, voice/video, and notifications provide more turnkey capabilities.
Pricing transparency: Usage-based pricing (Twilio, Firebase) vs. tiered MAU pricing (Stream, CometChat) affects predictability and cost as you scale.
Infrastructure vs. product features: Ably and PubNub excel at real-time infrastructure but require more custom layer development; full chat suites take care of both. Stream+1
Each alternative has trade-offs between control, cost, and features. Your choice should align with your product’s technical needs, expected engagement patterns, and long-term scalability goal
Aarathy Sundaresan
Content Marketer , CometChat