Microsoft Teams vs Rocket.Chat
A side-by-side look at Microsoft Teams (the paid SaaS) and Rocket.Chat (the open source alternative). Use this page to decide if the switch fits your team and workflow.
| Microsoft Teams | Rocket.Chat | |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | Video, chat, and collaboration bundled with Microsoft 365. | Open source team and community chat with video and voice. |
| License | Proprietary SaaS | MIT (community); proprietary modules available |
| Pricing | Included in Microsoft 365 from $6.99/month; Teams Essentials from $4/user/month standalone. | Free to self-host · optional paid hosted plan |
| Self-host option | No | Yes — difficulty 3/5 |
| Hosted cloud available | Yes (only option) | Yes |
| Desktop apps | Varies by product | Windows, macOS, Linux |
| Mobile apps | Official apps typically available | iOS, Android |
Best for
Large organizations with omnichannel and complex permissions.
Rocket.Chat strengths
- Federation support (via Matrix bridge).
- {'Large feature set': 'channels, threads, omnichannel.'}
- Strong customization options.
Rocket.Chat weaknesses
- Can feel heavy for small teams.
- Past performance issues on large deployments.
- Resource footprint is higher than competitors.
What's the catch with Microsoft Teams?
- Deeply tied to Microsoft ecosystem.
- Resource-heavy desktop client.
- Chat and meeting features sprawl across tabs.
Still unsure?
Check the full list of alternatives to Microsoft Teams: see Microsoft Teams alternatives, or learn more about Rocket.Chat on its project page.
Recommended reading
Why your team probably can't ditch Slack yet (and what needs to change)
Mattermost and Rocket.Chat are excellent. So why do most teams who try to migrate away from Slack end up back on Slack? An honest look at the real blockers.
When self-hosting goes wrong: seven failure modes and how to avoid them
An honest retrospective on the ways self-hosted setups break — not in theory, but in practice — and the small habits that prevent most of them.
Will the open source project you depend on still exist in three years?
Bus factor, maintainer burnout, funding models, and the signals that separate OSS projects that survive from those that quietly decay.