mirror of
https://github.com/rustdesk/doc.rustdesk.com.git
synced 2026-07-13 02:04:26 +00:00
fix review
This commit is contained in:
rustdesk
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ faq:
|
||||
- question: 'Can I self-host an AnyDesk alternative?'
|
||||
answer: 'Yes. RustDesk Server Pro is self-hosted by design, and you can also run the free open-source community server indefinitely at no cost. Someone on your side has to provision the host, open ports, set up TLS, and patch it over time.'
|
||||
- question: 'Is RustDesk cheaper than AnyDesk?'
|
||||
answer: 'RustDesk licensing is per login-user plus per managed-device, with unlimited concurrent connections on standard plans and a defined allowance on Customized V2. Self-hosting is not guaranteed to have the lowest sticker price in every configuration, so model both products against the same user, device, concurrency, feature, and infrastructure requirements; see rustdesk.com/pricing.'
|
||||
answer: 'RustDesk licensing is per login-user plus per managed-device, with unlimited concurrent connections on standard plans and a defined allowance on Customized V2. Your cost tracks your own users and devices plus a license, rather than a per-seat schedule set by a vendor, so model both products against the same user, device, concurrency, feature, and infrastructure requirements; see rustdesk.com/pricing.'
|
||||
- question: 'Does RustDesk support SSO and access control?'
|
||||
answer: 'Yes. RustDesk Pro includes a self-hosted web console, device groups plus a shared address book for per-user access control, and LDAP/SSO (OIDC) available from the Basic plan and up.'
|
||||
- question: 'Can I try RustDesk without a sales call?'
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ faq:
|
||||
- question: 'Does self-hosting make remote-desktop costs more predictable?'
|
||||
answer: 'Self-hosting changes who holds the pricing power: with RustDesk Server Pro you host it, so the cost is your infrastructure plus a license instead of a renewal the vendor sets. The product still has annual license terms, so compare the current pricing page at each renewal.'
|
||||
- question: 'Is switching away from AnyDesk worth the migration cost?'
|
||||
answer: "There is a real one-time switch cost — migration time, some retraining, and standing up and securing a server — but when the increase recurs, a switch often pays for itself within a renewal cycle or two. Estimate the switch cost once and weigh it against the increase you'd otherwise absorb at every renewal."
|
||||
answer: "There is a real one-time switch cost — migration time, some retraining, and standing up your own server — but when the increase recurs, a switch often pays for itself within a renewal cycle or two. Estimate the switch cost once and weigh it against the increase you'd otherwise absorb at every renewal."
|
||||
- question: 'Can I audit what the RustDesk client does?'
|
||||
answer: 'Yes — RustDesk is AGPL open source. You can read exactly what runs on your endpoints, build the client from source, and run the free community server for as long as you like.'
|
||||
- question: 'Is self-hosting always cheaper than AnyDesk?'
|
||||
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ When the renewal quote jumps, you really have two moves, and it's worth costing
|
||||
|
||||
**Renew and negotiate.** The fastest path: no migration, no retraining, a tool your team already knows, and sometimes you can talk the increase down. But you're negotiating from the weaker seat — the vendor knows switching is painful and has priced that pain into the quote — any discount you win tends to be temporary, and you're back at the same table next year. This is the right call when the increase is genuinely modest, you're mid-project, or your switching cost is unusually high.
|
||||
|
||||
**Switch.** There's a real upfront cost here, and we won't pretend otherwise: migration time, some retraining, and standing up and securing a server. What you buy with that one-time cost is a change in _who holds the lever_ — with a self-hosted, open-source tool, your recurring spend becomes your own infrastructure plus a license, not a seat count a vendor re-prices on its own schedule.
|
||||
**Switch.** There's a real upfront cost here, and we won't pretend otherwise: migration time, some retraining, and standing up your own server. What you buy with that one-time cost is a change in _who holds the lever_ — with a self-hosted, open-source tool, your recurring spend becomes your own infrastructure plus a license, not a seat count a vendor re-prices on its own schedule.
|
||||
|
||||
**The break-even.** Estimate the switch cost once — hours to migrate plus server setup — and weigh it against the increase you'd otherwise absorb at _every_ renewal. A one-time cost is a single line; a compounding annual increase is a curve. When the increase recurs, a switch often pays for itself within a renewal cycle or two. Run it with your own numbers before committing either way.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ metadata:
|
||||
|
||||
## Why look for a Chrome Remote Desktop alternative
|
||||
|
||||
[Chrome Remote Desktop](https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/1649523) is Google's free, browser-based remote-access tool. It's genuinely convenient: install a small host, sign in, and you can reach your machine from another device in a couple of minutes. For casual personal use, that's hard to beat.
|
||||
[Chrome Remote Desktop](https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/1649523) is Google's free, browser-based remote-access tool. It's simple and fast: install a small host, sign in, and you can reach your machine from another device in a couple of minutes — exactly what casual personal use calls for.
|
||||
|
||||
But the moment your needs grow past "help my own laptop from the couch," the seams show. You're tied to Google identity and signaling, some support-team features are missing, and the control plane is not self-hostable. Google's [network guide](https://support.google.com/chrome/a/answer/16364503) explains the boundary: connections are initially negotiated through Google services, while live WebRTC traffic uses Direct, STUN, or TURN/relay paths. Only TURN/relay session packets are relayed through Google data centers. If you've bumped into those trade-offs, this page lays out what a self-hosted, open-source alternative looks like.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ RustDesk is a different model from GoToMyPC's per-computer cloud: you host it, s
|
||||
|
||||
## What GoToMyPC is (and isn't)
|
||||
|
||||
GoToMyPC is a mature, [cloud-based remote-access product](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoToMyPC): you install a host agent on the machine you want to reach, and connect to it from a browser or app anywhere. It handles file transfer, remote printing, and multi-monitor support, and it is **fully managed** — GoTo runs the infrastructure, so there is nothing on your side to maintain.
|
||||
GoToMyPC is an established, [cloud-based remote-access product](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoToMyPC): you install a host agent on the machine you want to reach, and connect to it from a browser or app anywhere. It handles file transfer, remote printing, and multi-monitor support, and it is **fully managed** — GoTo runs the infrastructure, so there is nothing on your side to maintain.
|
||||
|
||||
Two things send people looking for an alternative. First, it is **cloud-only**: there is no self-hosted option, so every session is brokered through GoTo's servers. Second, its pricing is **per computer, per month** across the Personal, Pro, and Corporate tiers ([GoToMyPC plans](https://get.gotomypc.com/plansandpricing)), which adds up quickly as the number of machines you need to reach grows.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -65,6 +65,6 @@ That openness cuts both ways, to be clear: because the code is public, so are Ru
|
||||
|
||||
## The verdict
|
||||
|
||||
Is Chrome Remote Desktop safe? For casual personal use — reaching your own PC, helping a relative — yes, it's reasonably safe, and it's hard to beat for zero-cost simplicity. Rate it accordingly. Turn on two-factor authentication for your Google account, pick a PIN that isn't your birthday, and never read an access code to someone who contacted you first, and you've handled the risks that actually matter.
|
||||
Is Chrome Remote Desktop safe? For casual personal use — reaching your own PC, helping a relative — yes, it's reasonably safe, and simple and low-cost. Rate it accordingly. Turn on two-factor authentication for your Google account, pick a PIN that isn't your birthday, and never read an access code to someone who contacted you first, and you've handled the risks that actually matter.
|
||||
|
||||
Where CRD runs out of road is control and scale: it's closed, Google-cloud-brokered, and thin on administration. If you need to audit the code, keep brokering on your own infrastructure, or manage more than a couple of machines, that's the point to look at an open-source, self-hosted option — not because CRD is unsafe, but because it was never trying to be that tool.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ tags:
|
||||
author: RustDesk Team
|
||||
faq:
|
||||
- question: 'What open-source remote desktop software is available?'
|
||||
answer: 'Options range from protocol-level building blocks like VNC (TigerVNC, TightVNC) and the Apache Guacamole browser gateway to full support platforms. RustDesk aims to give you an auditable, self-hostable core plus support-team features like device groups, a shared address book, and a custom client generator.'
|
||||
answer: 'Options range from protocol-level building blocks like VNC (TigerVNC, TightVNC) and the Apache Guacamole browser gateway to full support platforms. RustDesk gives you an auditable, self-hostable core plus support-team features like device groups, a shared address book, and a custom client generator.'
|
||||
- question: 'Is RustDesk open source?'
|
||||
answer: "Yes. RustDesk's core is open source under the AGPL, so you can read the code, audit exactly what the client does, build it yourself, and run the free community server indefinitely."
|
||||
- question: "Can I self-host RustDesk's server?"
|
||||
@@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ Those concerns are structural: closed tools can change price, packaging, and hos
|
||||
| TeamViewer | No | No | Yes (vendor cloud) |
|
||||
| AnyDesk | No | On-premises appliance on top tier only | Yes |
|
||||
|
||||
VNC variants are proven and genuinely open, but you're building the connection, NAT traversal, and access control around them. Guacamole is a great browser-based gateway if you want clientless access, though it's an infrastructure project in its own right. RustDesk aims to give you the auditable, self-hostable core _plus_ the support-team features that closed tools sell — without the closed part.
|
||||
VNC variants are proven and genuinely open, but you're building the connection, NAT traversal, and access control around them. Guacamole is a great browser-based gateway if you want clientless access, though it's an infrastructure project in its own right. RustDesk gives you the auditable, self-hostable core _plus_ the support-team features that closed tools sell — without the closed part.
|
||||
|
||||
### Where RustDesk fits: auditable and self-hosted
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ Prices change constantly, so this section compares _models_, not exact dollar am
|
||||
|
||||
The two things to internalize about this model are annual billing and plan-specific concurrent-connection capacity. Scaling simultaneous connections can require add-ons or a different tier. Verify the current page and a dated written quote before budgeting because public packaging can change after this article's check date.
|
||||
|
||||
**RustDesk** licenses by **login users plus managed devices**, with prorated upgrades. Standard plans include unlimited concurrent connections, while Customized V2 limits and prices them separately. Self-hosting is not guaranteed to be cheaper in every configuration; compare current quotes for the same user, device, feature, and concurrency requirements. See [RustDesk Pro pricing](/blog/rustdesk-pro-license-cost-how-to-pay) and [the concurrency FAQ](/blog/rustdesk-concurrent-connections-limit).
|
||||
**RustDesk** licenses by **login users plus managed devices**, with prorated upgrades. Standard plans include unlimited concurrent connections, while Customized V2 limits and prices them separately. Because your cost becomes infrastructure plus a license you control rather than a per-seat cloud renewal, compare current quotes for the same user, device, feature, and concurrency requirements to see how it lands for your fleet. See [RustDesk Pro pricing](/blog/rustdesk-pro-license-cost-how-to-pay) and [the concurrency FAQ](/blog/rustdesk-concurrent-connections-limit).
|
||||
|
||||
Because RustDesk pricing itself shifts, this article deliberately doesn't quote a RustDesk dollar figure — the current numbers live at [rustdesk.com/pricing](https://rustdesk.com/pricing).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ The safer way to publish RDP is through a properly configured VPN or RD Gateway
|
||||
| Internet access | NAT traversal via rendezvous + relay, no VPN or port-forwarding | Needs VPN, RD Gateway, or port-forwarding |
|
||||
| Inbound port exposed | None on endpoints; service ports on a self-hosted server | TCP 3389 unless tunneled ([ransomware vector](https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2018/PSA180927)) |
|
||||
| Encryption | End-to-end (NaCl) by default ([docs](https://rustdesk.com/docs/en/)) | TLS/NLA; strong when configured correctly |
|
||||
| LAN performance | Very good; codec-based | Excellent; native and low-latency |
|
||||
| LAN performance | Strong; codec-based | Native, lowest-latency on LAN |
|
||||
| Directory/policy integration | LDAP/AD + OIDC SSO on Server Pro (Basic and up) | Deep Active Directory / Group Policy integration |
|
||||
| Self-hosting | Yes — your own ID/relay server | N/A (native OS feature) |
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ This section covers the security and compliance questions that usually drive the
|
||||
|
||||
One nuance for how you read this: ConnectWise's **cloud-hosted** customers (on screenconnect.com and hostedrmm.com) were patched automatically, while **self-hosted / on-premise** operators updated their own servers. That is inherent to self-hosting anything — you control the patch timeline, the same ownership that keeps your data on your infrastructure.
|
||||
|
||||
**The 2025 code-signing change.** A second, more recent episode is worth knowing about, because it landed specifically on on-premise operators. In June 2025 ConnectWise announced it would rotate ScreenConnect's code-signing certificates after a third-party researcher raised that configuration data was stored in an unsigned area of the installer, and the older on-premise certificate was revoked on July 7, 2025. On-premise operators had to update their server (the 2025.4 release / build 25.4.16) and re-deploy updated agents before the cutoff to avoid their clients being flagged or failing to install; ConnectWise also re-architected the installer so on-premise partners now sign their own clients. Read charitably, this is ConnectWise tightening supply-chain security — a good thing. But the operational lesson is the same one the 2024 CVE taught: when you self-host, certificate and security events land on _your_ change calendar, on a deadline, not the vendor's. RustDesk is no different in that respect; it is simply honest to say so up front.
|
||||
**The 2025 code-signing change.** A second, more recent episode is worth knowing about, because it landed specifically on on-premise operators. In June 2025 ConnectWise announced it would rotate ScreenConnect's code-signing certificates after a third-party researcher raised that configuration data was stored in an unsigned area of the installer, and the older on-premise certificate was revoked on July 7, 2025. On-premise operators had to update their server (the 2025.4 release / build 25.4.16) and re-deploy updated agents before the cutoff to avoid their clients being flagged or failing to install; ConnectWise also re-architected the installer so on-premise partners now sign their own clients. Read charitably, this is ConnectWise tightening supply-chain security — a good thing. But the operational lesson is the same one the 2024 CVE taught: when you self-host, certificate and security events land on _your_ change calendar, on a deadline, not the vendor's. Self-hosting RustDesk carries the same responsibility — you own the patch calendar.
|
||||
|
||||
**RustDesk's security model.** RustDesk's approach is structurally different. RustDesk is open source under the AGPL, which means it can be independently audited and built from source rather than taken on trust — a property no closed-source competitor can offer. Server Pro is self-hosted, so the rendezvous/relay servers run on your own machine or VPS and session brokering stays within infrastructure you control; for teams whose driving concern is data residency and GDPR, that on-premise posture is the whole point. On identity, RustDesk supports LDAP and SSO via OIDC — and here's a point worth stating plainly: **LDAP/SSO is available from the Basic plan and up; plans below Basic do not include it.** Administration runs through a self-hosted web console, and access control is handled with device groups and a shared address book so you can scope which users reach which machines. Setup specifics are in our [RustDesk LDAP and Active Directory guide](/blog/rustdesk-active-directory-ldap-sso).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ Pricing is the single most volatile part of any remote-access comparison, so we
|
||||
|
||||
**TeamViewer's model** is subscription-based and organized around named tiers plus concurrent-session limits. Packaging and prices vary by region and term, so use TeamViewer's current pricing page and your written quote rather than historical third-party figures or private customer invoices.
|
||||
|
||||
**A note on TeamViewer's older "lifetime" licenses.** Many teams first adopted TeamViewer under a **perpetual license** — a one-time purchase tied to a specific major version. TeamViewer no longer sells perpetual licenses; it is subscription-only now, and an old perpetual license remains usable only on the version it was originally valid for, subject to TeamViewer's product-lifecycle policy. In practice, end-of-support actions have cut older clients off from TeamViewer's network, and a class-action complaint filed in a U.S. federal court in March 2026 alleges this effectively forced perpetual-license holders to either lose remote access or move to a subscription (the allegations are unproven). Whatever its outcome, "the perpetual license I paid for no longer connects" is one of the more common reasons we see teams start shopping. It is only fair to add that RustDesk is not a perpetual-forever product either: the community server is free and open source with no expiry, but the commercial Server Pro terms are annual, not a lifetime buyout. ([TeamViewer subscription FAQ](https://www.teamviewer.com/en-us/global/support/knowledge-base/teamviewer-classic/licensing/subscription/all-about-subscription/), [class-action report](https://www.classaction.org/news/teamviewer-removed-functionality-from-paid-for-perpetual-software-licenses-class-action-lawsuit-claims))
|
||||
**A note on TeamViewer's older "lifetime" licenses.** Many teams first adopted TeamViewer under a **perpetual license** — a one-time purchase tied to a specific major version. TeamViewer no longer sells perpetual licenses; it is subscription-only now, and an old perpetual license remains usable only on the version it was originally valid for, subject to TeamViewer's product-lifecycle policy. In practice, end-of-support actions have cut older clients off from TeamViewer's network, and a class-action complaint filed in a U.S. federal court in March 2026 alleges this effectively forced perpetual-license holders to either lose remote access or move to a subscription (the allegations are unproven). Whatever its outcome, "the perpetual license I paid for no longer connects" is one of the more common reasons we see teams start shopping. RustDesk's own model is different: the community server is free and open source with no expiry, while the commercial Server Pro is licensed annually rather than as a lifetime buyout. ([TeamViewer subscription FAQ](https://www.teamviewer.com/en-us/global/support/knowledge-base/teamviewer-classic/licensing/subscription/all-about-subscription/), [class-action report](https://www.classaction.org/news/teamviewer-removed-functionality-from-paid-for-perpetual-software-licenses-class-action-lawsuit-claims))
|
||||
|
||||
**RustDesk's model** is different in two ways. First, commercial plans count **login users plus managed devices**. Standard plans include unlimited concurrent connections; Customized V2 has a defined concurrency allowance. Upgrades can be prorated, so confirm the current mid-term terms on the pricing page. Second, the community server has no license fee, while Server Pro is the commercial option for centralized features. RustDesk does not publish a fixed self-serve Server Pro trial; ask for current evaluation terms before planning a proof of concept. Payment mechanics are covered in [RustDesk Pro Pricing: Cost & How to Pay](/blog/rustdesk-pro-license-cost-how-to-pay).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ AnyDesk plan packaging and renewal terms can change. Its [official pricing page]
|
||||
|
||||
## Where each one actually fits
|
||||
|
||||
TeamViewer tends to win for MSPs that have outgrown ad hoc support: policy controls, structured reporting, mass deployment, and additional support-desk tooling on its higher plans. If your service desk already lives in ServiceNow, Jira, or Microsoft Intune, TeamViewer Tensor's native integrations are hard for a smaller competitor to match. That structure has a cost, and it shows up as complexity and add-on pricing rather than a single clean number.
|
||||
TeamViewer tends to win for MSPs that have outgrown ad hoc support: policy controls, structured reporting, mass deployment, and additional support-desk tooling on its higher plans. If your service desk already lives in ServiceNow, Jira, or Microsoft Intune, TeamViewer Tensor publishes native integrations into those tools. That structure has a cost, and it shows up as complexity and add-on pricing rather than a single clean number.
|
||||
|
||||
AnyDesk is often shortlisted by smaller shops that prioritize connection performance, a compact client, and branding. Whether its current packaging is economical depends on the quote and workload; model technician and concurrency growth rather than assuming it remains the cheapest option.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ TeamViewer and Splashtop both cover remote access and support, but the right com
|
||||
| Deployment model | Vendor-operated service | Vendor-operated SaaS plans; a separately licensed On-Prem product is available for enterprise deployments |
|
||||
| Administration | Policy controls, reporting, mass deployment, and enterprise integrations vary by edition | Roles, access management, and session recording on relevant plans; SSO, granular controls, SIEM, and other controls are concentrated in Enterprise |
|
||||
| Performance | Managed relay network; no published fps/color-depth claims | Performance advertises 4:4:4 color, high-fidelity audio, and up to 240 FPS; validate those workflows on the endpoints and networks you will actually use |
|
||||
| Buying fit | Teams that value a mature managed service, structured administration, and broad integrations | Individuals and teams comparing lower published entry tiers, multimedia features, or a separately quoted On-Prem deployment |
|
||||
| Buying fit | Teams that value an established managed service, structured administration, and broad integrations | Individuals and teams comparing lower published entry tiers, multimedia features, or a separately quoted On-Prem deployment |
|
||||
| Source model | Proprietary | Proprietary |
|
||||
|
||||
Treat pricing rows as dated — both vendors reprice often.
|
||||
@@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ TeamViewer's current [Trust Center](https://www.teamviewer.com/en/resources/trus
|
||||
|
||||
## Where each product fits
|
||||
|
||||
TeamViewer may fit organizations that want a managed service with mature policy controls, reporting, mass deployment, and enterprise integrations. Confirm which edition supplies each required control rather than assuming the full feature set exists in every plan.
|
||||
TeamViewer may fit organizations that want a managed service with structured policy controls, reporting, mass deployment, and enterprise integrations. Confirm which edition supplies each required control rather than assuming the full feature set exists in every plan.
|
||||
|
||||
Splashtop SaaS may fit teams that prioritize straightforward deployment, published entry pricing, and its performance-oriented feature set. Splashtop Enterprise and On-Prem address different requirements and should be quoted separately.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -27,13 +27,13 @@ metadata:
|
||||
keywords: 'Zoho Assist alternative, self-hosted Zoho Assist alternative, open source Zoho Assist alternative, RustDesk vs Zoho Assist, self-hosted remote support, on-premise remote support software'
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
[Zoho Assist](https://www.zoho.com/assist/) is a capable, cloud-based remote support and remote access product, and part of the broader Zoho suite. If you have landed here, you are probably not unhappy with what it does — you are asking a different question: **can I run something like this on my own infrastructure, and stop routing every session through a vendor's cloud?**
|
||||
[Zoho Assist](https://www.zoho.com/assist/) is a cloud-based remote support and remote access product, part of the broader Zoho suite. If you have landed here, you are probably not unhappy with what it does — you are asking a different question: **can I run something like this on my own infrastructure, and stop routing every session through a vendor's cloud?**
|
||||
|
||||
RustDesk is a genuinely different model from Zoho Assist's cloud: you run the server, so brokering and data stay yours. Here is where it fits as a self-hosted alternative.
|
||||
|
||||
## What Zoho Assist does well
|
||||
|
||||
Credit where it is due. Zoho Assist is [cloud-based](https://www.zoho.com/assist/) remote support and unattended access software that runs in the browser with no installation needed for technicians to start a session. It handles attended support and unattended access, file transfer, multi-monitor navigation, and it can be rebranded to suit your business. It integrates tightly with the rest of the Zoho ecosystem, and — like any mature SaaS — it means **zero server maintenance** on your side. Zoho runs the infrastructure; you log in and work.
|
||||
Credit where it is due. Zoho Assist is [cloud-based](https://www.zoho.com/assist/) remote support and unattended access software that runs in the browser with no installation needed for technicians to start a session. It handles attended support and unattended access, file transfer, multi-monitor navigation, and it can be rebranded to suit your business. It integrates with the rest of the Zoho ecosystem, and — like any mature SaaS — it means **zero server maintenance** on your side. Zoho runs the infrastructure; you log in and work.
|
||||
|
||||
For many teams that is exactly the right call. The reason people go looking for an alternative is usually one of two things: they want their session data and brokering on their _own_ servers, or they want to get out of a per-technician cloud subscription model.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user