Introduction to WebRTC and Its Growing Adoption
Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC) is an open-source project that enables real-time audio, video, and data sharing directly between browsers and mobile applications. Since its inception, WebRTC has revolutionized how developers build interactive communication features—eliminating the need for third-party plugins or proprietary protocols. Its promise lies in providing seamless, cross-platform communication and powering everything from browser-based video conferencing to embedded chat in mobile apps.
In 2025, WebRTC’s adoption continues to surge. Major platforms leverage its APIs for video calls, collaborative tools, online education, and telemedicine. Its open-source nature accelerates innovation, but while WebRTC delivers on accessibility and flexibility, it also presents several engineering challenges that developers must navigate.
Understanding WebRTC Architecture
At its core, WebRTC facilitates peer-to-peer (P2P) communication, enabling direct data exchange between endpoints. The architecture consists of three primary APIs: getUserMedia (media capture), RTCPeerConnection (establishing P2P connections), and RTCDataChannel (data transfer). Underneath, protocols like ICE, STUN, and TURN handle network traversal, while DTLS-SRTP secures the media streams.
WebRTC’s architecture fits naturally into modern web and mobile apps, allowing real-time features to be embedded with just a few lines of JavaScript. For developers looking to quickly integrate robust audio and video communication, solutions like a
javascript video and audio calling sdk
can streamline the process and reduce development time. However, its reliance on direct communication introduces some of the main disadvantages discussed later.What Are the Disadvantages of WebRTC?
Scalability Issues in WebRTC
One of the most significant disadvantages of WebRTC is its approach to scalability. Natively, WebRTC uses a mesh-based peer-to-peer model—each participant in a group call establishes a direct connection to every other participant. This design works well for one-to-one scenarios but becomes unsustainable as the group size increases.
As more users join, bandwidth and CPU usage grow exponentially. For example, in a 5-person video call, each user must send and receive four separate audio/video streams. This not only strains client devices but also quickly saturates available network capacity, resulting in quality degradation.
To overcome these limitations, developers often incorporate Selective Forwarding Units (SFUs) or Multipoint Control Units (MCUs). SFUs relay media streams between clients, reducing the number of direct connections each participant maintains. For teams building cross-platform apps, exploring
flutter webrtc
can help address scalability and compatibility challenges on mobile.1// Example: Integrating an SFU for scalable WebRTC
2const pc = new RTCPeerConnection({
3 iceServers: [{ urls: 'stun:stun.l.google.com:19302' }]
4});
5// Connect to SFU signaling server
6const sfuSocket = new WebSocket('wss://your-sfu.example.com');
7sfuSocket.onmessage = (msg) => {
8 const data = JSON.parse(msg.data);
9 if (data.sdp) {
10 pc.setRemoteDescription(new RTCSessionDescription(data.sdp));
11 // Respond with local SDP
12 pc.createAnswer().then(answer => {
13 pc.setLocalDescription(answer);
14 sfuSocket.send(JSON.stringify({ sdp: answer }));
15 });
16 }
17};
18
While SFUs improve scalability, they introduce additional infrastructure and may compromise end-to-end encryption, which is discussed next.
Security Concerns: End-to-End Encryption and Data Privacy
WebRTC secures media streams using DTLS-SRTP, providing robust encryption for peer-to-peer sessions. However, in multiparty calls mediated by an SFU, media streams are decrypted and re-encrypted at the server. This breaks the true end-to-end encryption promise and raises data privacy concerns.
For sensitive applications—like telemedicine, legal consultations, or confidential enterprise meetings—developers must weigh the risks of potential server-side access to unencrypted streams. Even with encryption in transit, the trust boundary shifts to the SFU operator. If your application requires higher security standards, leveraging a
Video Calling API
that offers built-in compliance features can help address these privacy and regulatory requirements.1// Secure WebRTC peer connection with enforced DTLS-SRTP
2const pc = new RTCPeerConnection({
3 iceServers: [/* ... */],
4 sdpSemantics: 'unified-plan'
5});
6pc.oniceconnectionstatechange = () => {
7 if (pc.iceConnectionState === 'connected') {
8 // Media is encrypted using DTLS-SRTP
9 console.log('Secure connection established');
10 }
11};
12
Without additional application-level encryption, multiparty WebRTC use cases may not meet stringent regulatory or privacy requirements, a key disadvantage for enterprise adoption.
Network and Connectivity Challenges
WebRTC’s reliance on direct P2P connections makes it vulnerable to network configuration challenges. Many users are behind NATs or firewalls, complicating peer discovery and connection establishment. STUN servers aid in NAT traversal, while TURN servers relay traffic when direct connections fail.
However, TURN comes with significant drawbacks: increased latency, potential bottlenecks, and higher operational costs due to server bandwidth. In corporate or restrictive environments, connections may still fail or suffer degraded performance. For Android developers, understanding the nuances of
webrtc android
implementation can help mitigate some of these connectivity challenges specific to mobile environments.1// TURN server configuration example
2const pc = new RTCPeerConnection({
3 iceServers: [
4 {
5 urls: 'turn:turn.example.com:3478',
6 username: 'user',
7 credential: 'pass'
8 }
9 ]
10});
11
Reliance on TURN is often necessary for global compatibility, but it diminishes the efficiency of peer-to-peer communication and increases infrastructure complexity.
Browser Compatibility and Fragmentation
Despite WebRTC’s standardization, browser support remains inconsistent across platforms and devices. New browser versions may introduce breaking changes, deprecate features, or lag in implementing the latest WebRTC APIs. Mobile browsers, in particular, can behave unpredictably, complicating cross-device interoperability.
This fragmentation leads to unpredictable user experiences, increased development and testing overhead, and a need for frequent updates to keep pace with browser evolution. It’s a persistent disadvantage for developers seeking uniform behavior in real-time communication apps. To simplify integration and ensure consistent performance, many teams choose to
embed video calling sdk
solutions that abstract away browser inconsistencies.Customization and Feature Limitations
WebRTC offers a robust set of core features, but its API surface is intentionally constrained to maximize interoperability. Deep customization—such as advanced branding, unique UI controls, or integration with proprietary codecs—is often limited or requires complex workarounds.
For organizations seeking granular control over every aspect of the communication stack, proprietary solutions could offer more flexibility. WebRTC’s openness is a double-edged sword: while it supports rapid prototyping and broad compatibility, it can hinder highly differentiated or branded experiences. If you need to build custom mobile experiences, a
react native video and audio calling sdk
can provide the flexibility and control that standard WebRTC APIs may lack.Reliability and Call Quality Issues
WebRTC connections are susceptible to call drops, reconnection challenges, and variable media quality, especially over unreliable networks. Unlike some proprietary solutions with built-in error correction and adaptive streaming, WebRTC demands that developers implement their own resilience strategies.
For instance, network interruptions may require custom reconnection logic to restore sessions transparently. When evaluating platforms, it's helpful to review
livekit alternatives
andjitsi alternative
options to find solutions that offer enhanced reliability and features beyond standard WebRTC implementations.1// Reconnection logic for dropped WebRTC calls
2function attemptReconnection(pc, signaling) {
3 if (pc.iceConnectionState === 'disconnected' || pc.iceConnectionState === 'failed') {
4 signaling.restartIce();
5 console.log('Attempting to reconnect...');
6 }
7}
8pc.oniceconnectionstatechange = () => attemptReconnection(pc, signaling);
9
In adverse conditions, users may encounter degraded audio/video quality, lag, or complete session loss—impacting critical applications like telehealth or remote education.
Use Cases Where WebRTC Disadvantages Are Most Impactful
The disadvantages of WebRTC are magnified in scenarios where reliability, security, and scalability are paramount:
- Enterprise video conferencing: Large meetings require robust scaling and enterprise-grade security, both challenging with standard WebRTC.
- Telemedicine: Privacy, compliance (HIPAA), and session continuity are non-negotiable, exposing WebRTC’s encryption and reliability gaps.
- Online education and webinars: High participant counts and varied devices make network, browser, and scaling issues more acute.
Best Practices and Workarounds for WebRTC Limitations
To address what are the disadvantages of WebRTC, developers can adopt several practical strategies:
- Scaling with SFU/MCU: Integrate SFU or MCU infrastructure to reduce peer connections and bandwidth, balancing performance with privacy trade-offs.
- TURN server deployment: Use geographically distributed TURN servers with auto-failover to minimize latency and maximize connection success.
- Security hardening: Layer application-level encryption atop DTLS-SRTP, enforce strong authentication, and monitor SFU/TURN access logs for compliance.
- Proactive compatibility testing: Employ automated CI pipelines to test across browsers and devices, tracking feature deprecations and regressions.
- Custom resilience logic: Implement reconnection and adaptive bitrate logic to preserve session quality in fluctuating network conditions.
By combining these best practices, developers can mitigate many WebRTC challenges and deliver more robust real-time experiences.
Conclusion: Balancing WebRTC’s Pros and Cons
Understanding what are the disadvantages of WebRTC is critical as adoption grows in 2025. While its open-source APIs empower innovation in real-time communication, issues like scalability, security, connectivity, and reliability require careful engineering. With thoughtful architecture and best practices, WebRTC can still deliver compelling solutions for most use cases. If you’re ready to explore advanced video calling solutions or want to experiment with modern APIs,
Try it for free
and see how you can overcome WebRTC’s limitations in your next project.Want to level-up your learning? Subscribe now
Subscribe to our newsletter for more tech based insights
FAQ