If chat is a core part of your product, chances are you’ve looked at Stream (aka GetStream - due to its domain name getstream.io). It’s a solid option for getting real-time messaging and video streaming up and running fast – but it’s not always built to scale with your needs.
As your product grows, you may find yourself hitting limits in flexibility, cost, or control – and that’s when teams often start looking for a better GetStream alternative.
In this guide, we’ll break down the top GetStream competitors, compare them head-to-head – including the popular GetStream vs. Sendbird match-up – and show you when a custom-built Stream-like chat app is the smarter move.
Let’s get straight to it.
You’re not the only one looking for a GetStream alternative – here are its most common limitations
Have you run into customization limitations? Maybe the features you need aren’t fully supported? Or maybe you’ve taken a hard look at GetStream pricing and realized that it doesn’t scale well with your user base? We hear these stories all the time – from startups moving fast on MVPs to enterprise teams trying to untangle long-term platform costs.
Outgrowing Stream’s flexibility
GetStream gives developers a solid starting point for real-time messaging with a modern API and decent UI components. But once chat becomes central to your product – or your user base starts to grow – its limitations start to show.
Customization is usually the first roadblock. Stream works well for quick launches, but deeper integration or tailored workflows often clash with its rigid structure. We see this often in the GetStream vs. Sendbird debate – Sendbird might offer more features, but both platforms lock you into predefined patterns that can’t flex around your product.
Escalating costs
Then there’s pricing. GetStream pricing feels manageable early on, but as usage increases – and you layer in premium features – costs rise quickly. Many teams turn to a Stream alternative not because Stream fails, but because it stops being cost-effective.
Limited control for sensitive or regulated use cases
For teams in healthcare, fintech, or other regulated spaces, control matters. Stream can’t always deliver the infrastructure ownership, encryption, or compliance flexibility you need. And relying on a third-party vendor for a critical communication layer adds risk.
Limited scalability
At some point, chat stops being a nice-to-have and becomes core to your product. That’s when the need for flexibility, performance, and full ownership outweighs the convenience of SaaS tools. Teams start looking at apps like GetStream, or a fully custom-built option – not out of curiosity, but necessity.
If you’re weighing Sendbird vs. Stream, or rethinking whether any third-party tool still fits, you’re not alone. Most teams that reach scale face the same turning point: what got you here won’t get you there.
Top 5 GetStream alternatives: pros, cons, and where they fit best
Choosing a chat platform isn’t just about ticking feature boxes – it’s about finding the right match for your product, team, and roadmap. Below, we’ve outlined five of the strongest GetStream competitors, where they shine, and where they fall short. Let’s evaluate those options.
- Sendbird – feature-rich SDK for fast chat deployment
Sendbird focuses on delivering a production-ready chat experience right out of the box. It’s aimed at mobile-first products and enterprise-grade platforms that need messaging, voice, or video with minimal build time.
Pros:
- Well-documented SDKs for iOS, Android, and web
- Built-in moderation, typing indicators, threads, media support
- Includes voice and video chat with native APIs
Cons:
- Custom UI requires more effort than it appears
- Costs add up quickly as usage grows – especially at scale
- Less flexible when you need to deeply integrate chat into app logic
Best use cases:
- Consumer apps with tight launch timelines
- Customer support or marketplace messaging
- Startups that need rich chat without building from scratch
GetStream vs. Sendbird:
Both platforms serve similar use cases, but GetStream wins on UI flexibility, while Sendbird offers stronger voice/video and customer support features. In a Sendbird vs. Stream decision, think about whether you prioritize visual freedom or communication channels beyond text.
- PubNub – real-time infrastructure for custom messaging logic
PubNub isn’t a chat solution – it’s a real-time messaging engine. It gives you the building blocks for live data delivery, and it’s up to you to turn those into a chat experience.
Pros:
- Global low-latency infrastructure
- Pub/Sub and presence systems built for scale
- Works well beyond chat – think multiplayer games, IoT, live dashboards
Cons:
- No out-of-the-box messaging UI or backend
- Higher dev effort to build full chat logic
- Not purpose-built for chat UX
Best use cases:
- Engineering teams that want control over every detail
- Products blending real-time data with chat (e.g. collaborative tools)
- Scenarios where performance matters more than polish
GetStream vs. PubNub:
PubNub gives you flexibility and speed. Stream gives you structure and polish. If your team can build the messaging layer, PubNub might offer more freedom. Otherwise, Stream’s SDKs will get you to market faster.
- Firebase Cloud Messaging – fast MVP tool for basic messaging
Firebase Cloud Messaging offers real-time syncing, push notifications, and backend services to help developers ship faster. It’s not built for chat, but it gives you enough to create simple messaging functionality.
Pros:
- Real-time database updates via Firestore
- Easy integration with other Firebase services
- Free tier is generous for early-stage projects
Cons:
- Lacks chat-specific features like threading, reactions, delivery receipts
- Becomes expensive and complex to optimize as usage scales
- Requires a lot of workarounds for even basic chat UI/UX
Best use cases:
- MVPs and prototypes
- Products already using Firebase for auth or hosting
- Lightweight communication between users
GetStream vs. Firebase:
Firebase gets you off the ground quickly, but it’s not a true GetStream alternative unless you heavily customize it. If you’re building a robust chat app, Stream wins in every category except for speed-to-MVP.
- Twilio Conversations – multi-channel messaging for enterprise
Twilio Conversations is built for flexibility and compliance. It supports chat, SMS, and WhatsApp in a unified messaging framework, making it a fit for customer-facing and transactional messaging systems.
Pros:
- Omnichannel messaging across platforms
- Strong support for compliance and audit trails
- Integrates well with Twilio’s broader comms ecosystem
Cons:
- API-first approach means more dev work
- Not ideal for in-app social or community chat
- Pricing is usage-dependent and hard to predict early
Best use cases:
- Enterprise apps with customer service workflows
- Regulated industries with strict messaging rules
- Platforms with both mobile and external communication needs
Stream vs. Twilio:
If you need in-app chat, Stream is a better fit. If you’re connecting users across channels or building helpdesk-like workflows, Twilio wins. They're designed for different use cases – don’t force one into the other’s lane.
- Pusher Channels – lightweight WebSocket layer for DIY messaging
Pusher Channels offers basic pub/sub via WebSockets, perfect for lightweight messaging, presence, or notifications. It’s minimal and developer-friendly, but you’ll need to bring your own logic.
Pros:
- Quick setup for real-time updates
- Works well with modern JS frameworks
- Good documentation and SDKs
Cons:
- No chat-specific features – everything is manual
- Limited scalability for high-volume chat
- No built-in persistence or moderation
Best use cases:
- Real-time dashboards and live feeds
- Lightweight chat or notification layers
- Apps where messaging is a nice-to-have, not core
GetStream vs. Pusher:
If you want a basic Stream alternative and don’t need full chat functionality, Pusher can get you there. But once you need threading, media, or history, GetStream or a more complete solution will save time.
Off-the-shelf vs. custom: when building your own chat platform actually makes more sense
Choosing between a prebuilt SDK and building your own messaging system isn’t just a technical decision – it’s a strategic one. Most teams start with off-the-shelf tools because they want to ship quickly and reduce complexity. That’s smart.
Platforms like Sendbird and other Stream alternatives offer enough functionality out of the box to validate your product and get users talking. But as your app grows, the cracks tend to show.
So how do you decide when to move beyond third-party tools and build a custom Stream-like chat app from scratch?
Off-the-shelf chat SDKs: fast setup, predictable features
If you need to integrate messaging fast, going with a platform like Sendbird or other GetStream alternative can save you time. You get messaging, notifications, and basic moderation with minimal effort. The APIs are well-documented. The UIs are passable. And your team can stay focused on your core product.
That’s the upside. But here’s what usually brings teams back to the drawing board:
- You’re forced to adapt your product to fit their feature set – not the other way around
- You have limited visibility and control over how messages are handled
- You can’t optimize performance or cost beyond a certain scale
- You run into UI/UX limitations that slow down iteration
- And eventually, you find yourself paying more for less flexibility
Take the GetStream vs. Sendbird debate, for example. Some teams choose Sendbird for its rich feature set, only to realize later that they need custom flows that neither platform supports well. Others pick Stream for its UI flexibility but end up hitting roadblocks when they try to deeply integrate messaging into their business logic.
These aren’t fringe cases – they’re common pain points that prompt teams to look for a GetStream alternative or start exploring what it would take to build something tailor-made.
When a custom chat platform is the better long-term bet
We work with companies who reach this crossroads all the time. The turning point usually comes when messaging isn’t just a feature – it’s part of the product’s DNA. If your users rely on real-time communication to transact, collaborate, or engage in high-value interactions, then every detail of that chat experience matters. And that’s not something most SaaS tools can deliver.
Here’s when building your own GetStream alternative starts to make a lot more sense:
- You need full control over UI, performance, and data architecture
- You want to avoid escalating Stream pricing or unpredictable usage-based costs
- You require deep integration with your product’s business logic
- You operate in a regulated space and need end-to-end control for compliance
- You’re tired of workarounds and want to move faster without external constraints
Building your own messaging system isn’t trivial – but when done right, it becomes a long-term asset, not a liability. You own the roadmap, the architecture, and the experience. You’re not waiting for a vendor to support the feature your users expect next quarter. And you’re not paying a premium just to send a few extra thousand messages each month.
Thinking beyond GetStream Competitors
There’s no shortage of apps like GetStream, and plenty of GetStream competitors offer solid solutions for a wide range of use cases. But if your chat experience is core to your product – and you’re already wrestling with the limits of SaaS messaging platforms – it’s worth asking a bigger question: is it time to build something better?
In the next section, we’ll show you what that actually looks like: how long it takes, what it costs, and what to expect when you go custom. Spoiler: it’s probably more achievable than you think.
What it takes to build a custom GetStream alternative
Let’s say you’ve evaluated the GetStream competitors. You’ve looked at the GetStream vs. Sendbird trade-offs. Maybe you even launched with one of them and now you’re running into limits. You’re not alone. At this point, a lot of teams ask the same question: what would it actually take to build a custom messaging platform?
Here’s the answer, based on years of helping companies do exactly that.
Timeline: how long does it take to build a custom GetStream alternative?
You don’t need to build a full-blown WhatsApp clone from day one. Most teams start with a focused MVP that includes the essentials: 1:1 chat, group messaging, presence indicators, media sharing, and notifications. With a dedicated team, that kind of scope usually takes:
- 3–6 months to build a solid MVP
- 6–12+ months to launch a fully featured, production-scale messaging platform
We’ve helped clients move faster, and we’ve also seen teams extend timelines to integrate deeply with internal tools, CRMs, or compliance systems. The key is starting lean and evolving the platform alongside real usage.
Cost: how much does it cost to build a GetStream alternative?
GetStream pricing often starts to raise eyebrows once usage increases, but building isn’t free either.
Here’s a general range based on what we’ve seen in real-world projects:
- $50,000–$100,000 for an MVP that covers messaging basics
- $150,000–$300,000+ for a scalable platform with moderation, analytics, advanced search, and integrations
Yes, it’s an investment. But unlike SaaS pricing that keeps rising as you grow, this is a one-time foundation you own. You set the rules, you choose the infrastructure, and you decide how to evolve it.
What are the features to include in your new tool? Read our guide on must-have features and those that add a competitive edge.
How we can help you build (or integrate) your GetStream alternative
You’ve looked at the options and you know the trade-offs now – between flexibility and speed, control and convenience, scalability and cost.
But whether you’re leaning toward integrating an off-the-shelf SDK or building a fully custom Stream-like chat app, one thing’s clear: you need the right partner to do it well.
We’ve worked on both sides of this equation. We've integrated platforms like Stream, Sendbird, Twilio, and PubNub into high-growth products across industries.
We've also helped teams build their own messaging systems from scratch – real-time, reliable, and fully owned.
A great example? Helmet House, a leading distributor in the motorcycle gear industry. We helped them replace outdated, fragmented communication channels with a fully integrated, real-time messaging system tailored to their sales and customer service workflows - take a look at the full Helmet House case study. The result? Faster response times, improved team coordination, and a more seamless experience for both internal users and customers.
Another example? Our collaboration with Dive showcases how a custom-built chat platform can become the backbone of a high-growth product. Dive needed a robust, scalable communication layer to support real-time conversations in their virtual collaboration environment. We engineered a tailored chat system that handled presence, messaging, and live interactions – all optimized for performance and user experience. This enabled Dive to scale quickly, enhance engagement, and deliver a truly interactive product. It’s a clear example of how we turn complex messaging needs into business-ready solutions.
These and other projects have given us a unique perspective on where off-the-shelf tools fall short, what it really takes to scale, and how to help clients future-proof their messaging architecture.
So if you’re comparing Sendbird vs. Stream, thinking through GetStream vs. build-your-own, or just trying to find the best GetStream alternative for your next phase of growth – we’re here to help you get it right.
Contact us today and let’s talk about what your messaging experience needs to do, what’s holding you back today, and how we can solve it together.
