Element vs Rocket.Chat

The one question that decides this

The real split is not “which one is the open-source Slack?” because both are trying to replace Slack in some shape. The split is philosophy: Element is a Matrix client built around “secure decentralized communication,” while Rocket.Chat describes itself as an “open source omnichannel customer communication platform” and also replaces Microsoft Teams. If you want Slack, but with federation and Matrix as the center of gravity, Element is the cleaner fit. If you want a more conventional team/customer communication system that feels aimed at organizations first, Rocket.Chat is the more obvious lane.

What each one is actually trying to be

Element: secure decentralized communication built on Matrix

Element’s own tagline is “Secure decentralized communication built on Matrix,” and that is the whole product argument in one sentence. It is not just trying to be a prettier Slack clone with a GitHub repo attached. The GitHub description calls it “A glossy Matrix collaboration client for the web,” which is refreshingly specific: Element is the client, Matrix is the protocol bet, and the collaboration layer rides on top of that.

That matters because the Slack replacement conversation usually gets polluted by people asking for every Slack affordance, every integration, every muscle-memory shortcut, and ideally a free pony. Element is not positioned here as “Slack, but cheaper.” It is positioned as a secure, decentralized communication client that can replace Slack and Signal. That second replacement target is the tell: Element is thinking about communication architecture, identity, and secure messaging, not just workplace channels with a different logo.

Rocket.Chat: open source omnichannel customer communication

Rocket.Chat’s tagline is “The open source omnichannel customer communication platform.” That is a different pitch. It is still in the Slack-replacement bucket, and the data says it replaces Slack and Microsoft Teams, but the word “omnichannel” pulls it toward a broader organizational communication product rather than a protocol-first chat client.

The GitHub description goes even harder: “The Secure CommsOS™ for mission-critical operations.” That is a lot of capitalization and trademark energy for one sentence, but it tells you what Rocket.Chat wants to sell: not just rooms and messages, but a communication operating layer for serious organizations. Whether you find that compelling or a little enterprise-scented depends on what you are trying to escape. If your Slack pain is “we need more control and self-hosting,” Rocket.Chat is in the conversation. If your Slack pain is “centralized chat platforms are the problem,” Element has the sharper thesis.

Head-to-head: the metrics

Element’s GitHub repo, element-hq/element-web, is written in TypeScript and has 13,343 stars, 2,707 forks, 3,842 open issues, license AGPL-3.0, and a last push date of 2026-08-03. Rocket.Chat’s repo, RocketChat/Rocket.Chat, is also TypeScript and has 45,927 stars, 13,769 forks, 3,941 open issues, license NOASSERTION, and a last push date of 2026-08-03.

The blunt read: Rocket.Chat has much larger GitHub visibility by stars and forks. It has more than three times Element’s stars and roughly five times the forks. Element, however, has a clearly stated AGPL-3.0 license in the provided data, while Rocket.Chat’s license field is NOASSERTION, which is not the same thing as “permissive,” “closed,” or “bad.” It means the license value here is not asserted, and pretending otherwise would be spreadsheet fan fiction.

Both projects look active by last-push freshness: 2026-08-03 for Element and 2026-08-03 for Rocket.Chat. That date does not prove release quality, maintainer responsiveness, roadmap health, or that your favorite bug will be fixed before the heat death of your standup culture. It does tell us both repos are alive in the basic GitHub sense.

The open issue counts are also close enough to be interesting: Element has 3,842 open issues, while Rocket.Chat has 3,941. High issue counts can mean a big user base, a long-lived project, lots of surface area, or a backlog that has developed its own weather system. They do not, by themselves, mean the software is broken. But they do mean you should not wander in expecting a tiny, tidy hobby repo where every edge case has been lovingly hand-polished.

Stars and forks are popularity signals, not procurement decisions. Rocket.Chat clearly wins the raw GitHub attention contest. Element has the more explicit protocol identity and a declared AGPL-3.0 license in the provided data. Neither metric tells you whether your team will actually like using it every day, whether migration will be painless, or whether your compliance person will stop forwarding you documents with “quick question” in the subject line.

Self-hosting

Element supports self-host and official-cloud, with a deploy difficulty of 4 out of 5. That tracks with the shape of the project: a Matrix-based collaboration client is not usually the “just throw it on a tiny VPS and forget it exists” category. You can self-host it, and official cloud is available, but the difficulty score says you should budget real setup attention. Element’s official SaaS price in the provided data is $5/month.

Rocket.Chat also supports self-host and official-cloud, with a deploy difficulty of 2 out of 5. That makes it the easier self-hosting choice on the numbers provided. It is still infrastructure, so nobody should confuse “2 out of 5” with “zero operational responsibility,” but the comparison is straightforward: Rocket.Chat is marked as materially easier to deploy than Element. Rocket.Chat’s official SaaS price in the provided data is $4/month.

Community signals

Element has 1 Hacker News mention in the last 90 days. Its listed top HN story is “Element (Matrix chat app) suspended from the Google Play Store,” posted by redsolver on 2021-01-29, with 2,009 points and 940 comments. That is a huge discussion, but it is also tied to a specific platform-store incident, not a clean referendum on Element as a Slack replacement. Useful signal, but not the kind you can reduce to “HN loves it” without embarrassing yourself.

The Reddit data for Element is present, but the listed top post is “This scientist blends diverse chemical elements and reactions to generate mesmerizing visuals that materialize within a single drop of water” from r/interestingasfuck, with 35,635 upvotes and 331 comments. That is about chemical elements, not Element the Matrix client. So yes, the metric exists; no, it should not be treated as community validation for the software. This is exactly how lazy content mills end up citing aquarium videos as proof of developer adoption.

Rocket.Chat has 0 Hacker News mentions in the last 90 days. Its listed top HN story is “Welcoming Rocket.Chat to Matrix,” posted by anthropodie on 2022-05-31, with 221 points and 77 comments. That is relevant because it places Rocket.Chat in the broader Matrix-adjacent conversation, even though Rocket.Chat’s own positioning here is more omnichannel and organization-facing than Element’s Matrix-client identity.

The Reddit data for Rocket.Chat is also present, but the listed top post is “This dude I played with dug out an entire trench line in about 35 seconds.” from r/Helldivers, with 4,602 upvotes and 135 comments. That is not about Rocket.Chat. It is not a meaningful signal for this comparison, unless your internal communications strategy involves excavation under pressure, which, to be fair, some Slack workspaces do resemble.

What we'd do

Pick Element if your reason for leaving Slack is structural: you want secure decentralized communication, Matrix matters to you, and you are willing to accept a harder deployment path for that architecture. Pick Rocket.Chat if your reason for leaving Slack is more practical: you want an open-source team or customer communication platform, easier self-hosting, bigger GitHub visibility, and a product that also positions against Microsoft Teams. Element has the stronger philosophy. Rocket.Chat has the easier deployment score and the larger repo footprint.