When assessing live video SDKs, it is critical to step back and examine the whole picture of performance under various settings and scenarios. That is why we decided to do a thorough comparison of the performance of Enablex and Zoom's real-time video SDKs.
Our testing demonstrates that the Enablex Video call SDK regularly beats the Zoom Video SDK in common RTC settings. For example, under normal network conditions with 20% packet loss, zoom exhibits latency, freezes, and stutters, whereas the Enablex video stream remains stable. Zoom's video is frequently significantly grainy, but Enablex gives consistently greater image quality and clarity. Watch the test video below to see how they compare side by side.
This blog presents the primary findings from performance tests that compare Zoom and Enablex SDKs in four scenarios. For the full test setup, detailed findings, and charts for each test case, please see the links to the respective blogs explaining each scenario here:
1:1 Desktop PC Video Calls.
Multi-party Desktop PC Video Calls
Multi-Party Mobile Video Calls
Multi-party web video calls
1:1 Desktop PC Video Calls.
This test evaluates Enablex and Zoom for 1:1 call between PCs. You can see the whole test setup, detailed results, and charts for this test here: Enablex versus Zoom Video SDK for 1:1 Desktop PC Video Calls.
Normal network conditions: Zoom and Enablex frame rates averaged 29 frames per second (FPS), which is an expected figure given that frame rates rarely hold 30 FPS. The transmission bitrates for Enablex and Zoom were the same, while Enablex receiving bitrate remained higher.
Packet loss and jitter: Despite fluctuating network conditions, Enablex maintained a higher bitrate, giving users a higher-quality experience overall. As illustrated, Enablex bitrate adapts to network conditions to deliver the best possible experience.
25% packet loss with a 1Mbps network capacity limitation: After about 5 seconds of applying the throttle, Enablex quickly adapts to the situation and returns to above 25 FPS, which it then maintains when the throttle is released. Zoom, on the other hand, looks to be laboring at 0 FPS for more than 15 seconds before dropping to less than 5 FPS on average while the constraint remains in place.
25% Downlink Packet Loss: During the bitrate-focused testing, Enablex outperformed Zoom in terms of adapting to changing network circumstances, maximizing through put, and maintaining a great video experience.
Winner: Enablex.
Enablex SDK maintained a consistent frame rate and bit rate despite variable network constraints, beating Zoom in packet loss and jitter scenarios.
Multi-party Desktop PC Video Calls
In this test, we examined the performance of the Enablex and Zoom video SDKs during Multi-Party Mobile Video Calls with up to 32 participants under various real-world network conditions. The whole test setup, detailed results, and graphs for this test are available here: Enablex vs. Zoom Video SDK for Multi-Party Desktop PC Video Calls.
Under normal network conditions, both Enablex and Zoom operated admirably, with clear video and audio and an average received frame rate of 27 to 28 Frames Per Second (FPS) in calls with 8, 16, and 32 participants.
25% uplink packet loss: Enablex has a tiny 2 to 3 FPS edge over Zoom on received frame rate in calls (8, 16, and 32 participants). Enablex maintained a greater sent and received bitrate than Zoom.
25% downlink packet loss: Enablex outperforms Zoom by 4 to 6 FPS on the received frame rate in calls (8, 16, and 32 participants). Enablex and Zoom had comparable transmitted and received bitrate performance.
Winner: Enablex.
The Enablex SDK shows significant advantages and versatility across various network settings. Enablex operated more consistently and efficiently overall, particularly under more difficult conditions. When network circumstances changed and degraded, Zoom froze or had choppy video, whereas Enablex provided smooth, natural audio and video.
Multi-Party Mobile Video Calls
In this test, we compared how the Enablex and Zoom video SDKs performed during multi-party mobile video chats with up to 32 participants under different real-world network conditions. You can see the complete test setup, detailed results, and graphs for this test here: Enablex vs. Zoom Video SDK for Multi-Party Mobile Video Calls.
Under normal network conditions, Enablex and Zoom performed similarly. However, Enablex outperformed Zoom by two frames per second (FPS). Enablex outperformed Zoom with high-quality video and audio and an average received frame rate of 26 frames per second.
25% uplink packet loss: Enablex maintained a 2-FPS edge at 25 FPS. Zoom fell to a frame rate of 23.
25% downlink packet loss: Enablex outperformed Zoom by 5 FPS on received frame rates. Enablex 25 FPS, Zoom 20 FPS.
600ms uplink and downlink jitter: Enablex maintains steady at 23 FPS, whereas Zoom drops abruptly to 3 FPS on uplink and 4 FPS on downlink, resulting in a highly choppy video and maybe dropping the call
Enablex outperforms Zoom even at a low bandwidth of 500Kbps. Zoom went to 0 FPS for more than 10 seconds due to frozen footage before recovering to 25 FPS after a 20-second fight.
Winner: Enablex.
While Zoom and Enablex performed comparably in several settings in our test, Enablex produced more fluid, realistic audio and visuals at more consistent frame rates. When jitter and limited bandwidth were imposed, Zoom froze, gave choppy video, and recovered slowly, whereas Enablex performed well.
Top comments (0)