Differences between WebSockets and Socket.IO
WebSockets and Socket.IO are probably two of the most popular solutions for implementing real-time communications in the modern web. But how do they differ?

When building a real-time application, there’s a moment where you have to choose how to implement the realtime data exchange between client and server. WebSockets and Socket.IO are probably two of the most popular solutions for implementing real-time communications in the modern web. But which one should we choose? What are the differences between these two technologies? Let’s find out!


When talking about WebSockets, we’re referring to a web communication protocol that provides a full-duplex communication channel over a single TCP connection. In few words, it allows interactions between client and server with a minimum overhead, allowing us to build applications that uses the advantages of real-time communications.

For instance, imagine if you’re building a chat app: you need to receive and send data as soon as possible, right? Well, that’s the right job for WebSockets! You can just open one TCP connection and share data leaving it open as long as you need it.

WebSockets first appeared in 2010 in Google Chrome 4, and the first RFC (RFC 6455) has been published one year later, in 2011.

Great use cases for WebSockets includes:

  • Chat Applications
  • Multiplayer Games
  • Collaborative Editing
  • Social Feeds
  • Location-based Applications

and many more.


Socket.IO is a JavaScript library built on top of WebSocket… and other technologies. In fact, it uses WebSockets when available, but it’s ready to fallback to other technologies such as Flash Socket, AJAX Long Polling, AJAX Multipart Stream and many more; that allows Socket.IO to be used in contexts where WebSockets are not supported. There’s an amazing article in the Ably blog which describes its features in depths.

#Differences between WebSocket and Socket.IO

The main advantages of Socket.IO over WebSockets are:

  • Unlike WebSocket, Socket.IO allows you to broadcast a message to all the connected clients. For instance, if you’re writing a chat application and you want to notify all the connected clients that a new user has joined the chat, you can easily broadcast that message in one shot to everyone. Using plain WebSocket, you’ll need a list of all the connected clients and then send the message directly one by one.
  • Proxies and load balancers makes WebSockets hard to implement and scale. Socket.IO supports these technologies out of the box.
  • As said before, Socket.IO is able to fallback to technologies other than WebSockets when the client doesn’t support it.
  • If (for some reason) a WebSocket connection drops, it will not automatically reconnect… but guess what? Socket.IO handles that for you!
  • Socket.IO APIs are built to be easier to work with.

So, it seems that Socket.IO is something like “the heaven of real-time communications”, right? Well, there are actually some good reasons for using vanilla WebSockets.

First of all, every modern browser supports WebSockets these days. Socket.IO uses much more boilerplate code and resources in order to make it fallback to other technologies. Most of the time, you don’t need this level of support. Even in terms of network traffic, Socket.IO is way more expensive. In fact, with plain WebSockets the browser may need to run just two requests:

  • The GET request for the HTML page
  • The UPGRADE connection to WebSocket

and that’s it. You’re ready to start a realtime communication with your server! But what about Socket.IO?

  • The GET request of the HTML page
  • Socket.IO client library (207kb)
  • Three long polling Ajax request
  • The UPGRADE connection to WebSocket

in a world where we’re using a lot of JavaScript code and libraries are drastically reducing their weight… 207kb are a lot! And what about all these requests? What a waste of network traffic!

There’s even an npm package called websocket-vs-socket.io (see here) that has been built for comparing the network traffic of those two technologies:

WebSocket network traffic:

Differences between WebSockets and Socket.IO

Socket.IO network traffic:

Differences between WebSockets and Socket.IO

what a huge difference!

#Writing realtime code

So far we have just seen some differences on paper, but how do they differ when writing a realtime application?

Simple WebSocket server In the following Node.js program, we’re creating a WebSocket server exposed on port 3001. Everytime that a client connects, we’ll assign a unique ID to its session. When the client sends a message, we’ll just reply with the following format: [<client-id>]: <message>, so he’ll know that the message has been successfully sent.

const WebSocket = require("ws");
const UUID      = require("uuid");
const wss       = new WebSocket.Server({ port: 3000 });

wss.on("connection", ws => {
  ws.id = UUID();

  ws.on("message", message => {
    ws.send(`[${ws.id}]: ${message}`);


Great! But what if I want to broadcast that message to every connected client? WebSockets doesn’t support message broadcasting by default! That’s right, but message broadcasting is still easy to implement with vanilla WebSockets:

const WebSocket = require("ws");
const UUID      = require("uuid");
const wss       = new WebSocket.Server({ port: 3000 });

function broadcast(clientId, message) {
  wss.clients.forEach(client => {
    if (client.readyState === WebSocket.OPEN) {
      client.send(`[${clientId}]: ${message}`);

wss.on("connection", ws => {
  ws.id = UUID();
  ws.on("message", message => broadcast(ws.id, message));

So easy! As you can see, the WebSocket.Server keeps track of every connected client, so we can just loop over them and send the desired message to everyone! We’ve just implemented the easiest chat server ever! You can test the code above with any WebSocket client, both on desktop, or via Chrome Extension.

Simple Socket.IO server Ok, that has been incredibly easy! But Socket.IO promises to make it even easier! How should we implement the exact same server with that library?

const io     = require("socket.io");
const server = io.listen(3002);

server.on("connection", socket => {

  socket.on("message", message => {
    socket.emit(`[${socket.id}]: ${message}`);
    socket.broadcast.emit(`[${socket.id}]: ${message}`);


Wow! Nearly half of the WebSocket server code! As you can see, with the Socket.IO native broadcast method we’re not sending the message back to the sender; for that reason, we’ll need to manually emit that message to the client.

But there’s a problem: you can’t test it on a standard WebSocket client (as we’ve seen in the previous example). That’s because (as said before), Socket.IO doesn’t use plain WebSockets, but mixes multiple technologies in order to support as many clients as possible (and to avoid certain problems, as described above). So how do can you test it?

    <script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/[email protected]/dist/socket.io.slim.js"></script>
    <script type="text/javascript">
      ioClient = io.connect("http://localhost:3000");
      ioClient.on("connect", socket => {
        ioClient.send("Hello everybody!");
        ioClient.on("message", msg => console.log(msg));

You’ll need to use the Socket.IO client. In the above example, we’re using a CDN-delivered client that will allow us to make some quick and dirty tests on a web browser.

As you can see, these two example may not seem so different… but when it comes to compatibility, you have to keep in mind that Socket.IO will always work with its own client library, so you won’t be able to use it for purposes other than web development. That is not true for WebSockets, that might be used to solve a large set of problem, such as p2p communications, realtime server-to-server data transfer and so on.

#Things to keep in mind

As we’ve seen at the beginning, there are many problems that Socket.IO tries to solve.

  • Horizontal scaling. Let’s say that your chat app is having lot of success and you need to add another server and a load balancer in order to handle all the requests. Well, if you’re opening a connection on the “server 1", but then the load balancer switches you to the “server 2", you’ll get the following error: "Error during WebSocket handshake: Unexpected response code: 400". Socket.IO solves that problem using a cookie (or routing the connection based on their originating address), but WebSockets doesn’t provide an alternative mechanism out of the box.
  • Performances. As we’ve said before, Socket.IO provides multiple layers of abstraction over vanilla WebSockets transport layer. It will also enforce JSON packaging, so you won’t be able to send real binary data from client to server (and vice versa). If you’ll ever need to achieve that level of performance, you’ll need to customize the library in order to avoid that specific behavior. With vanilla WebSockets you won’t never have this problem.So, what should I choose?

Well, there’s not a simple answer to this question. Socket.IO may make things a bit easier for sure; you don’t have to worry about load balancer related issues, connection failures and message broadcasting… but are you sure you really need these features? Just the Socket.IO client library alone is heavier than React, Redux and React-Redux packaged together. Are you sure that you can’t use the browser native WebSocket API?

Another thing to keep in mind is that Socket.IO, implemented server-side, is a custom library/framework where most of the time you’re not following the vanilla WebSocket logic, because of the abstractions applied by Socket.IO itself. If you’re refactoring your Node.js microservices (let’s say) to Go, Elixir, Java or any other language, you’ll have to rewrite most of the logic behind the Socket.IO behavior in order to achieve the same results with vanilla WebSockets. For instance, think about broadcasting a message to every connected client: with Socket.IO is just one method (.broadcast), but in vanilla WebSockets you’ll have to implement it on your own, so you’ll have to rethink about the way it works. So maybe, it is worth it to start to work with vanilla WebSockets from the beginning, so it will be easier to refactor, extend or implement new features in other languages (if you’re writing microservices/lambdas etc).

So, what will you choose for your next real-time application?