When comparing Flussonic Media Server vs Wirecast, the Slant community recommends Wirecast for most people. In the question“What are the best software tools for live streaming?” Wirecast is ranked 4th while Flussonic Media Server is ranked 31st. The most important reason people chose Wirecast is:
Wirecast has support for rare, advanced functionality such as IP cameras, remote desktop capture, 3D virtual sets, image slideshow, scoreboards, and projectors.
Specs
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Easy to use and configure
Easy to integrate with other Flussonic servers. Development doesn't stop. They keep updating their software and enhancing the experience and the capabilities.
Pro Provides a lot of advanced functionality
Wirecast has support for rare, advanced functionality such as IP cameras, remote desktop capture, 3D virtual sets, image slideshow, scoreboards, and projectors.
Pro Streams to multiple networks simultaneously
Wirecast can stream to multiple networks as long as you add non-Facebook networks using the manual RTMP method.
Pro Functionality can be extended via plugins
Pro Can create and automate playlists
Wirecast offers an option to create and automate playlists - even with live shots - by modifying the duration of each shot. Playlists also can be used to create highlight reels after capturing Instant Replays.
Cons
Con Sometimes updates break the config file and sometimes things are changed drastically
This may prompt you to redo and reconsider your setup. It's not recommended to update Flussonic unless you have time and make sure the server you're updating is not serving customers.
Con Expensive
Costs $495.