When comparing Rocket.Chat vs Matrix, the Slant community recommends Rocket.Chat for most people. In the question“What is the best team chat software?” Rocket.Chat is ranked 7th while Matrix is ranked 17th. The most important reason people chose Rocket.Chat is:
Rocket.Chat is available for free. It's licensed under the MIT license with source code available on [GitHub](https://github.com/RocketChat/Rocket.Chat).
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pro Free and open source
Rocket.Chat is available for free. It's licensed under the MIT license with source code available on GitHub.
Pro Native apps for all major desktop and mobile platforms
Rocket.Chat has native apps for macOS, Windows, Linux, iOS and Android.
Pro Supports a wide variety of authentication methods
In addition to the usual email / username + password combination, Rocket.Chat supports authenticating via Facebook, Github, Gitlab, Google, Linkedin, Meteor and Twitter accounts.
Pro Understands markdown better than Slack does.
Links work properly, for instance, with square brackets followed by parentheses.
Pro Very active and helpful community
Pro Video conferencing support
Rocket.Chat supports video calls.
Pro Bridges other networks into a single decentralised network
Matrix has bridges to IRC (freenode, moznet, oftc, snoonet etc), Slack, Gitter, Rocket.Chat, XMPP, SMS, SIP and others. The point is to 'matrix' all the different networks out there into one single decentralised network.
Pro Built on an open standard
Matrix is an open standard, defining simple HTTP APIs so that devs can easily write their own clients, bots, bridges or servers. You're not locked into a specific set of implementations.
Pro Does not require a centralized server to establish a connection between two users
Matrix is decentralized, there's no one central point that the information goes through and so no once central point of failure or control.
Pro Has an easy to use client called Riot
Riot.im is the easiest way to use Matrix, with great clients for Web, iOS and Android (and Fdroid).
Pro Supports different kinds of communication
Matrix is designed to support Instant Messaging, VoIP/WebRTC signalling (voice and video) and Internet of Things communication.
Pro Has an app store for 3rd party integrations & bots
Riot.im includes an app store with integrations for Github, JIRA, Jenkins, Giphy etc - and anyone can add more via Matrix.
Pro Offers choice of clients
Which can be found here.
Pro Can be integrated with existing communication services
Matrix is designed to support Instant Messaging, VoIP/WebRTC signalling and Internet of Things communication and allows cross-communication between those services. Meaning one person could be using IRC and another Slack for IMs, or one person could be using Skype and another Google Hangouts for videoconferencing.
Pro Has an active community behind it
Pro Maintains full conversation history
Pro Matrix prioritizes direct messaging with people the same as Slack-style groups
Matrix aims to "provide an analogous ecosystem to email - one where you can communicate with pretty much anyone, without caring what app or server they are using" using a neutral identity system.
Pro End-to-end encryption
Matrix features end-to-end encrypted chats which are syncronized accross all your devices.
E2E is [implemented in the matrix-js-sdk library and Riot.im client](http://matrix.org/git/olm/about, http://matrix.org/git/olm/tree/docs/megolm.rst, http://matrix.org/speculator/spec/drafts%252Fe2e/client_server/unstable.html#end-to-end-encryption).
Con Developer support is non-existent
Can't even create a clean Ubuntu VM with a working developer install. Unresolved dependencies; fails to build. Docs are terrible; actual devs don't respond to questions; error messages are near-opaque. DO NOT RECOMMEND.
Con Web client loses images
In chat rooms with images, before very long, images start to become empty boxes. Useless to pass around visual information
Con No theme customization
Con No chat audit for enterprise
Con Poor security implementations / protocols
Con iOS app is poorly made
The iOS application is not native, being just a browser container. This means that the UX is quite poor, slow, buttons unresponsive. At this moment they do not provide a decent experience.
Con Android app is poorly made
The Android application is just a badly wrapped web-view which does not perform well and has no form of offline caching whatsoever.
Con Privacy settings are absent
Privacy settings for the server are absent, for instance, you don't have the ability to disable registrations, there's no way to control access to the chat.
Con Features not available out of the box
Con No web browser support
Con Email required for registration
Con No way to block new registrations
Without the ability to disable registrations, there's no way to control access to the chat.
Con Keys cannot be checked automatically
You cannot automatically check keys of your recepients. Only manually.