"Is WebRTC better than Zoom?"

Wrong question. WebRTC IS what powers many of these services. But let's compare anyway.

Here's how WebRTC stacks up against every major video calling technology. No BS. Just facts.

WebRTC vs Zoom

The surprise: Zoom uses WebRTC. For browser-based calls. The app uses proprietary protocol.

Zoom app wins at:

• Scale (handles huge meetings better)
• Features (virtual backgrounds, recording, transcription)
• Reliability (just works, consistent experience)
• User-friendliness (grandma can use it)

WebRTC wins at:

• Privacy (can be end-to-end encrypted)
• Cost (no per-user fees)
• Latency (direct connections faster)
• Customization (build exactly what you need)

Real talk: Zoom for meetings with many people or non-technical users. WebRTC for custom solutions, better privacy, or lower costs at scale.

The irony: Comparing Zoom to WebRTC like comparing McDonald's to beef. Zoom is built WITH WebRTC (partly).

WebRTC vs Skype

Background: Skype predates WebRTC by years. Microsoft's baby.

Skype wins at:

• Brand recognition (everyone knows it)
• Phone call integration (can call actual phone numbers)
• Enterprise features (if you're in Microsoft ecosystem)

WebRTC wins at:

• Modern architecture (Skype's tech is aging)
• Performance (faster, more efficient)
• Browser support (no download needed)
• Open standard (not locked to one company)

The decline: Skype usage dropping. Why? Better alternatives exist. Many using... WebRTC.

Microsoft's response: Teams. Which uses... WebRTC. Full circle.

Verdict: Skype is legacy tech living on brand name. WebRTC is the future.

WebRTC vs FaceTime

FaceTime is: Apple's proprietary video calling. iPhone, iPad, Mac only.

FaceTime wins at:

• Integration (built into Apple devices)
• Simplicity (just works on Apple)
• Quality (on Apple devices, consistently good)

WebRTC wins at:

• Platform independence (works everywhere)
• Customization (build your own)
• Cost (FaceTime = Apple ecosystem only)

The limitation: FaceTime only Apple. WebRTC anywhere.

Fun fact: FaceTime originally planned to be open standard. Patent lawsuit changed that. Now Apple-only.

Comparison is weird: FaceTime is product. WebRTC is technology. Like comparing iPhone to ARM processors.

Verdict: Apples and oranges. Literally.

WebRTC vs Microsoft Teams

Teams reality: Built on WebRTC. Modified heavily. Added Microsoft sauce.

Teams wins at:

• Enterprise integration (Office 365, SharePoint, everything Microsoft)
• Features (massive feature set)
• Support (Microsoft backing)

WebRTC (pure) wins at:

• Simplicity (Teams is complex)
• Cost (Teams licensing expensive)
• Flexibility (not locked to Microsoft)

The comparison: Teams is WebRTC + enormous feature pile + enterprise needs.

For businesses: Teams makes sense if you're Microsoft shop. Otherwise, alternatives exist.

Verdict: Teams is WebRTC in a very expensive suit.

WebRTC vs Discord

Discord's secret: Built heavily on WebRTC. Screen sharing, voice, video all WebRTC.

Discord wins at:

• Gaming focus (optimized for gamers)
• Community features (servers, bots, integrations)
• User experience (gamers love it)

Pure WebRTC wins at:

• Flexibility (Discord is their way or highway)
• Privacy (Discord sees metadata)
• Cost (for custom solutions)

Interesting: Discord is one of best WebRTC implementations. Proves WebRTC can scale.

Verdict: Discord is WebRTC done right for specific use case (gaming/communities).

WebRTC vs Traditional Phone Calls

Yes, comparing to old-school phones.

Phone calls win at:

• Reliability (if it works, it works)
• Ubiquity (everyone has phone number)
• Emergency services (911 works)
• No internet required

WebRTC wins at:

• Quality (HD audio/video vs compressed phone audio)
• Features (screen sharing, file transfer, etc.)
• Cost (free vs phone bills)
• Group calls (easy vs conference call pain)

The shift: Young people barely use phone calls. Video is default.

The irony: Many "phone calls" now use WebRTC under the hood (WhatsApp, Messenger, etc.).

Verdict: Phone calls are legacy. WebRTC is present and future.

WebRTC vs WebSockets

Different purposes. But people confuse them.

WebSockets: Bidirectional communication channel. Messages, data. Not optimized for media.

WebRTC: Specifically designed for real-time media (video, audio) and data channels.

When to use WebSockets:

• Chat messages
• Real-time updates
• Game state sync
• Notifications

When to use WebRTC:

• Video calls
• Voice calls
• File transfer (large files)
• Low-latency data

Can use both: Many apps do. WebSockets for signaling WebRTC connections. Or for chat while WebRTC handles video.

Verdict: Different tools for different jobs. Not competitors.

WebRTC vs WebTransport

New kid on block: WebTransport is newer standard.

WebTransport advantages:

• Even lower latency (for some use cases)
• Better control over data delivery
• More flexible than WebRTC

WebRTC advantages:

• Mature (years of development)
• Works everywhere (browser support)
• Proven at scale
• Rich ecosystem

Relationship: WebTransport doesn't replace WebRTC. Complements it.

Use cases diverging:

• WebRTC: Media (video, audio)
• WebTransport: Fast data transfer, gaming

Timeline: WebTransport still emerging. WebRTC established.

Verdict: Future might use both. Not either/or.

WebRTC vs Proprietary Corporate Solutions

Companies like: Cisco, Poly, Avaya. Sell expensive conference systems.

Proprietary wins at:

• High-end features (for niche needs)
• Sales pitch (sounds impressive)
• Enterprise support (for huge money)

WebRTC wins at:

• Cost (dramatically cheaper)
• Flexibility (not vendor locked)
• Modern approach (not legacy tech repackaged)
• Browser-based (no special hardware required)

The shift: Enterprise moving from proprietary to WebRTC-based. Slowly but surely.

The resistance: Sales teams defending expensive contracts. IT departments familiar with old systems.

Verdict: WebRTC disrupting enterprise video. Proprietary systems on borrowed time.

The real question: When to use what

Use Zoom when:

• Need it to just work
• Large meetings (50+ people)
• Non-technical users
• Need recording/transcription

Use WebRTC directly when:

• Building custom solution
• Need better privacy
• Want lower costs at scale
• Specific requirements Zoom doesn't meet

Use Teams when:

• Microsoft ecosystem
• Enterprise integration needed
• Budget less important than features

Use FaceTime when:

• Everyone has iPhone
• Want simplest possible experience
• Don't need cross-platform

Use Discord when:

• Gaming community
• Need server/channel structure
• Want community features

Use old-fashioned phone when:

• Everything else has failed
• Calling grandma who refuses technology
• Absolute reliability required

What most people miss

WebRTC isn't a product. It's technology. Ingredient.

Comparing WebRTC to Zoom like comparing:

• Engine to car
• Flour to bread
• Code to app

Zoom, Teams, Discord: Products built WITH WebRTC (and other tech).

Pure WebRTC: Building block you use to create your own solution.

The confusion: People think WebRTC competes with these products. It powers them.

For developers: The choice matrix

Use managed service (Twilio, Daily, etc.) when:

• Fast development needed
• Don't want infrastructure headaches
• Can accept their limitations
• Budget exists for services

Build with WebRTC directly when:

• Specific requirements
• Want full control
• Have technical capability
• Need lowest costs at scale

Use existing product (Zoom, etc.) when:

• Don't need custom solution
• Their features match needs
• Budget for subscriptions exists
• Want no-hassle approach

The uncomfortable truth

Most comparisons are wrong. WebRTC isn't alternative to Zoom. It's what Zoom (partly) uses.

Better question: "Should I build my own with WebRTC, or use existing product?"

Answer depends on:

• Technical capability
• Budget
• Requirements
• Scale
• Timeline

For most people: Existing products fine. Zoom, Discord, Teams they work.

For developers/businesses with specific needs: WebRTC lets you build exactly what you need.

The bottom line

WebRTC is foundation. Products are buildings.

Zoom, Teams, Discord, FaceTime: Different buildings, some using WebRTC foundation, some not.

Comparing them directly: Missing the point.

Real choice:

1. Use existing product (easier, less flexible)
2. Build with WebRTC (harder, more flexible)

No wrong answer. Depends on needs.

But knowing WebRTC powers many products: Helps understand options better.

Next time someone asks "WebRTC or Zoom?"

Answer: "That's like asking 'engine or car?' Wrong framing."

Then explain. Or just send them this article.

---

Built with WebRTC: Try NotesQR for direct file transfers.

Questions? Connect on LinkedIn or X.com.