Streaming SSE vs WebSockets vs WebRTC: A Practical Comparison

Team 5 min read

#webdev

#realtime

#architecture

#sse

#websocket

#webrtc

Overview

Real-time communication options come in three major flavors: Server-Sent Events (SSE), WebSockets, and WebRTC. Each is built for different goals and environments. Understanding their data flow, lifecycle, and network implications helps you pick the right tool for the job.

Server-Sent Events (SSE)

  • How it works: SSE uses a standard HTTP connection where the server pushes text-based events to the client. The browser exposes an EventSource API to consume these events. The connection is unidirectional (server to client) and remains open to stream updates.
  • Use-cases: Live feeds, dashboards, notifications, stock ticks, or any scenario where clients primarily receive updates from the server.
  • Pros:
    • Simple to implement on the server side and with browsers.
    • Built-in reconnection, event IDs, and last-event-id semantics.
    • Works well behind many proxies and CDNs that support HTTP streaming.
  • Cons:
    • One-way communication; clients cannot send arbitrary messages back through the same channel.
    • Limited to text-based events; binary data requires encoding strategies.
    • HTTP/1.1 compatibility concerns; middleboxes may throttle or block long-running streams in some environments.
  • Common considerations:
    • Use a stable endpoint with proper CORS configuration if serving cross-origin clients.
    • Consider fallbacks if SSE is blocked by a network proxy.

WebSockets

  • How it works: WebSockets establish a full-duplex, persistent TCP connection via an HTTP/1.1/2 upgrade handshake. After the handshake, both client and server can send frames at any time.
  • Use-cases: Interactive chat, live collaboration, multiplayer gaming, real-time analytics where both sides must communicate with low latency.
  • Pros:
    • True bidirectional, low-latency communication.
    • Supports binary frames and custom subprotocols.
    • Flexible messaging patterns beyond simple events.
  • Cons:
    • More complex server state management and scaling patterns (e.g., sticky sessions, message routing, backpressure).
    • Requires a WebSocket-capable network path (firewalls/proxies may interfere; use WSS for security).
    • Stateful connections can be heavier to scale for very large fan-out.
  • Common considerations:
    • Use secure WebSockets (wss://) in production.
    • Plan for backpressure, heartbeat/ping mechanisms, and connection limits.

WebRTC

  • How it works: WebRTC is designed for peer-to-peer media and data. It uses RTCPeerConnection for establishing direct connections between peers, with a signaling channel to exchange offers/answers and ICE candidates. Data Channels enable arbitrary data transfer; media streams enable audio/video.
  • Use-cases: Real-time peer-to-peer video/audio calls, collaborative whiteboards with synchronized state, distributed file transfer, and low-latency data sharing where servers are not always in the data path.
  • Pros:
    • Very low latency for peer-to-peer communication.
    • Efficient for media and high-performance data transfer when peers can connect directly.
    • Reduces server load once peers are connected (beyond signaling).
  • Cons:
    • Complex setup (signaling, NAT traversal, TURN servers for relay).
    • Requires signaling infrastructure and careful handling of ICE candidates, SDP, and security concerns.
    • More challenging to implement reliably across browsers and network environments.
  • Common considerations:
    • Use TURN servers to handle cases where direct paths are unavailable.
    • Signaling is application-specific; it’s not part of WebRTC itself.
    • Data channel reliability and ordering must be configured for the use case.

How to choose

  • For server-driven updates to many clients with simple, unidirectional streams: consider SSE.
  • For interactive apps needing low-latency two-way communication between clients and servers (e.g., chat, live dashboards, multiplayer coordination): WebSockets are usually a better fit.
  • For peer-to-peer scenarios where you need low-latency media or direct data transfer between participants (with signaling and NAT traversal): WebRTC shines, especially when server scaling is a concern after the initial handshake.
  • If your application requires broadcasting to a large audience with occasional client-to-server messages, you can combine approaches (e.g., SSE for updates, WebSockets for control messages, WebRTC for P2P media).

Quick-start tips

  • SSE example (Node/Express):

    • Server:

      • Set headers: Content-Type: text/event-stream, Cache-Control: no-cache, Connection: keep-alive
      • Periodically write events in the form: data:

    • Client:

      • Use new EventSource(‘/stream’) and listen for message events.

    • Simple snippet:

      • Server: res.setHeader(‘Content-Type’, ‘text/event-stream’); res.setHeader(‘Cache-Control’, ‘no-cache’); res.setHeader(‘Connection’, ‘keep-alive’); let counter = 0; setInterval(() => { res.write(`data: ${JSON.stringify({ id: counter++, ts: Date.now() })}

`); }, 1000); // Keep-alive ping may be needed for some proxies. - Client (browser): const es = new EventSource(‘/stream’); es.onmessage = (e) => console.log(‘SSE data’, JSON.parse(e.data));

  • WebSocket example:

    • Server (Node with ws): const WebSocket = require(‘ws’); const wss = new WebSocket.Server({ port: 8080 }); wss.on(‘connection’, (ws) => { ws.on(‘message’, (message) => { console.log(‘received:’, message.toString()); ws.send(‘ack:’ + message); }); });
    • Client (browser): const ws = new WebSocket(‘wss://example.com/socket’); ws.onopen = () => ws.send(‘hello’); ws.onmessage = (event) => console.log(‘got’, event.data);

  • WebRTC quick-start (data channel, browser-focused):

    • Signaling: you need a signaling channel to exchange offers/answers and ICE candidates (could be WebSocket-based server).
    • Basic data channel example:
      • const pc = new RTCPeerConnection({ iceServers: [{ urls: ‘stun:stun.l.google.com:19302’ }] });
      • const dc = pc.createDataChannel(‘chat’);
      • dc.onmessage = (e) => console.log(‘data:’, e.data);
      • pc.onicecandidate = (e) => signalingChannel.send({ type: ‘ice’, candidate: e.candidate });
    • For media: attach local media streams to the peer connection and handle remote streams similarly.

Common pitfalls and tips

  • SSE:
    • Not good for client-to-server messaging; cannot easily handle binary or complex two-way protocols.
    • Some corporate proxies or legacy CDNs can interfere with long-lived HTTP streams.
  • WebSockets:
    • Scaling requires careful architecture (stateful connections, possible need for message brokers, or horizontal sharding).
    • Be mindful of firewall and load balancer configurations; prefer wss:// in production.
  • WebRTC:
    • Signaling is out-of-band and varies by app; ensure a robust signaling mechanism.
    • NAT traversal can fail without TURN; plan for relay paths and potential cost.
    • Data channels have different reliability and ordering guarantees; configure accordingly.
    • Security: validate all peers and constrain data channel usage to avoid abuse.

Final takeaways

  • SSE is ideal for simple, server-originated event streams to many clients with minimal client logic.
  • WebSockets excel in interactive, bidirectional scenarios where the server and clients exchange frequent messages.
  • WebRTC is the best option for low-latency, peer-to-peer communication, especially for media or high-throughput data, when you can manage signaling and NAT traversal.

With the right mix, you can architect real-time features that leverage the strengths of each protocol while keeping complexity and cost in check.

Share this article

Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn