Celeris vs Pusher
An honest comparison of Celeris and Pusher: throughput, billing model, and when each is the right choice.
Pusher has a clean developer experience, and it was one of the first platforms that made managed WebSockets popular. Its weak points are throughput and billing predictability at scale.
TL;DR
Choose Celeris if:
- You need sustained high message throughput
- Connection-based billing from Pusher hits you on traffic spikes
- You want binary messaging (MessagePack, Protobuf)
- You want data in your own infrastructure (BYOD, coming soon)
- Predictable, usage-based prices matter more than a simpler API
Choose Pusher if:
- You need a simple, fast integration and throughput is not critical
- Your team already knows Pusher and migration cost is high
- You need Pusher Beams (push notifications) specifically
- Your connection counts are modest and predictable
The billing model difference
Pusher charges on the peak concurrent connections for each plan, with messages on top. Connection-based billing is unpredictable: a traffic spike costs you even when it is short. Celeris charges for connection minutes. Thus, you pay only for the time when connections are open.
Celeris billing:
- You pay per connection minute, not for peak concurrent connections
- Spikes do not move you to a higher tier permanently
- A 10-year billing option is available for stable workloads
Pusher billing:
- The price follows the concurrent connections (a plan limit), not the usage
- A spike to 500 connections on the 100-connection plan requires an upgrade
- The design is not for sustained high message rates
Feature comparison
| Feature | Celeris | Pusher |
|---|---|---|
| Throughput (benchmarked) | 96,114 msg/s in a sustained single-node test | Not published |
| Binary messaging | ✓ | — |
| Per-origin ordering | ✓ | — |
| Billing model | Usage-based (minutes) | Connection-tier based |
| BYOD data export | Coming soon | — |
| 10-year recurring pricing | ✓ | — |
| Free tier | ✓ | ✓ |
| Multi-region | US and EU regions via AWS Global Accelerator (130 PoPs) | Limited |
| Raw WebSocket compatible | ✓ | Limited |
| Push notifications | — | ✓ |
The honest take
What Pusher does well: Pusher has an excellent developer experience and a large ecosystem. A basic WebSocket connection works quickly. Its Channels product is mature, with good documentation.
Where Celeris is different: The Pusher design is not for sustained high-throughput workloads. Binary-first messaging and per-origin ordering do not exist in Pusher.
Who should use Pusher: If you have modest throughput requirements and want the fastest possible integration with minimal operations work, Pusher works well. If you approach the Pusher limits, or if your bill becomes unpredictable, evaluate Celeris.