Learn how SAMA and Stoat differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these encrypted communication tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
20 days agoRepository age
4 yearsVersion
0.37.2License
GPL-3.0Repository
sama-server
Last 30 days
Last commit
1 day agoRepository age
5 yearsVersion
v0.16.2Self-hosted
YesRepository
stoatchat/stoatchat
Stoat appears to have several advantages over SAMA, particularly in popularity, maturity and features. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Stoat significantly outpaces SAMA in community adoption with 3,420 stars compared to 161 stars on GitHub. This 21.2x difference suggests Stoat has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Stoat has 405 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
SAMA and Stoat are moving at much the same rate, adding 3 stars and adding 68 stars respectively over the last 30 days (+1.9% vs +2%). Neither is pulling away from the other on momentum alone.
Both projects show recent activity, with SAMA last updated 20 days ago and Stoat 1 day ago.
SAMA uses JavaScript while Stoat leverages Bash, Python, Rust.
Stoat has been in development longer, starting 5 years ago, compared to SAMA which began 4 years ago. This 1.3-year head start suggests Stoat may have more mature features and established processes.
SAMA is licensed under GPL-3.0, while Stoat's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Encrypted Communication. However, they also have distinct specializations: SAMA also focuses on Live Chat & Messaging, WebSockets Servers while Stoat extends into Team Chat & Messaging.
Stoat provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while SAMA may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.