Apps Like Discord

10 Apps Like Discord Worth Trying in 2026

Recently, we moved a real community and a small work team into each of these apps like Discord and spent at least a week inside each of them, writing a word here. All information below is not from a marketing page. It’s what we break, what we’re impressed by, and what we might tell a friend or client before giving in to a whole server switch. 

If you were searching for “Discord alternatives,” then you are looking for one of four things: better audio quality, a more business-friendly application, more control over your data, or simply a no-fuss app that won’t eat up your laptop’s memory. 

10 Apps Like Discord for Chat, Gaming, and Communities 

The right Discord alternative depends less on how many features it offers and more on what you need it to do well. During our research and testing, we found clear differences between the options. Some make more sense for work, others are built around voice, privacy, self-hosting, or large communities.

So, we have looked at each app based on where it genuinely fits, what you gain by switching, and what you may have to give up compared with Discord.

1. Slack

We’re not here to make Slack some kind of Discord for everyone. When you’ve got work going on in your channels that you might want to find again, it makes sense.

This disparity was evident in our test. Relocating a small team took about 20 minutes, and common functions like mentions, reactions, channels, and pinned messages were similar to what users already knew. 

However, over the next few days, we were using Slack in a different way. Rather than scrolling through a crowded channel to find the person, phrase or project, we could search for that and return immediately to the conversation that was relevant.

That’s a minor variation on a quiet day. It can save a lot of digging after six months in a project.

Pros: 

• Search is one of the useful features Slack provides for teams to find conversations. When looking back at any previous decision or client conversation, you can easily find the older discussions. 
• A detailed conversation can follow underneath one message in the stream without consuming all the space, with the help of threads. 
• Huddles can be helpful if a text discussion requires 5 minutes of verbal communication, but does not warrant a meeting.

Cons:

• If your team has to use old conversations as working documents, make sure to review Slack’s current free-plan limits before making the move.
   
• Huddles are a convenient way to talk when things are short and sweet. But they don’t make you feel like you’re in a Discord voice channel and you can stay there and chat around or play games. 
• It’s easy to experiment with Slack with a small team, but with dozens or hundreds of people needing access, it’s more important to understand the pricing model.

Our Verdict: Pick Slack if Discord is gradually turning into your company’s unofficial workplace chat. This can be very helpful when someone is saying, “Where did we talk about that?” or “What did the client decide? 

Searchable conversations and organized threads are also better at handling this than adding more channels to an already crowded Discord server. For teams building similar chat, automation, or intelligent collaboration features into their own products, our AI development services cover the development side in more detail. 

2. Microsoft Teams

Other than Slack, Microsoft Teams is more difficult to get used to. The interface includes a chat, in addition to Microsoft’s meetings, calendar, files and other features, meaning that there is more happening. 

We use it for real work calls, though, and that’s when it becomes clear how it is used. In Teams, it’s about the way that companies communicate throughout their working day, not about the way they hang out online.

Pros:

• Useful meeting records: Live captions and transcripts allow for easy review of a discussion, rather than going through handwritten notes. 
• Stable screen sharing: In our view, shared screens are clearer than on Discord with the same connection. 
• Microsoft 365 connection: Word, Excel, calendars, chats and meetings can all be integrated into a single working solution.

Cons:

• Too much information: New users will need to learn a few tabs and tools before Teams feels natural. 
• Voice calls can sometimes be a bit choppy: As voice calls became larger, there was an increasing amount of stuttering noticed. 
• Harder to justify, and, if your company doesn’t already utilize Microsoft 365, then Teams is of little use.

Our Take: Teams is a product that’s designed for companies already using Microsoft’s products, particularly those that have to collaborate on documents or attend meetings every day. 

3. Telegram

During testing, there was not much setting up required for Telegram. We formed a group, shared an invite and people could begin talking immediately. The simplicity becomes more valuable as a community grows. A public announcement channel with several thousand members is also set up, and we do not notice any lag.

Pros:

• Designed for large groups: Telegram groups allow up to 200,000 members, which makes them suitable for communities that have surpassed the size of smaller group-chat platforms. 
• Seamless device transitions: Not lost during device transitions and stayed in sync with conversational content. 
• Telegram bots can be used for tasks like moderation and community maintenance. Once you go past the Telegram basics, bots can be employed to deal with jobs like moderation and regular community tasks.

Cons:

• Voice isn’t the priority either: Voice chat is available but not as user-friendly and “hangout first” as Discord’s, which has been used by games of all kinds. 
• Lack of moderation options: Mods aren’t able to have the same level of roles and permissions that they have on a Discord server. 
• Privacy requires some context: Telegram is not end to end encrypted by default, so it shouldn’t be considered a more private alternative to Discord.

Our Verdict: If you have to send a message to a very large audience in a very short time, Telegram is the better option. That scale can be pretty useful for creators, public communities, and projects that are based around announcements. 

4. Element (Matrix)

Element required the most effort at the front-end of trial of any app we tested. It’s due to its open communication protocol, Matrix. Consideration must be given to the types of homeserver to be used or the feasibility of running one. 

After we cleared that hurdle, things began to feel more comfortable. Our community has been given a structure that’s not too far removed from Discord by Rooms and Spaces, and the members of our community got used to it in a few days.

 Pros: 

• Private conversations: By default, encrypted direct messages provide a stronger ground for privacy in one-to-one communication for Element.
• No single point of failure: Matrix is decentralized, meaning that your community isn’t relying solely on any one company to keep their platform up and running.
• Control through self-hosting: When organizations want to have more control over where conversations and data reside, they can use their own homeserver.

 Cons:

•  Additional set-up decisions: Discord doesn’t have to make the choice of a homeserver.
•  A few seconds delay in messages: Sometimes messages were received a few seconds delayed.
• Mobile experience: We found that the mobile client was less refined and reliable than the desktop version.

Our Verdict: If you’re not interested in having control over what you’re saying and hearing, then Element may not be worth looking into. This is ideal for communities and organisations who would prefer to select where their communications reside, rather than relying 100% on a closed platform.

 5. Rocket.Chat

Rocket.Chat is a way of communicating with the team from an IT point of view. At setup, there were questions more about hosting, access and administration than anything else – these are the important questions here. 

Its Community edition can be self-hosted, but we needed to work with Docker and a database to get our instance running. This level of flexibility is also why businesses often choose custom web application development when an off-the-shelf communication platform cannot match their internal workflows. 

 Pros:

• Practical communication features like file transfer, video calls, and screen sharing are available with Capable Community edition, its self-hosted option.
• Openness for customization: Development resources can use the open source software according to their own needs.
•  Improved control over data: Organizations have the flexibility to choose where their instance runs, and control access based on internal policies.

 Cons:

• Technical deployment: There must be a member of the team that is adept at handling the server and the required supporting infrastructure.
• According to the information we’ve gathered for our testing, Chat has altered its paid tier: They dropped their previous Pro tier and instead, organizations are thinking about their paid Commercial or Government tier of Chat.
• Community support is patient: An issue that is addressed through community may take a long time to resolve as compared to commercial support.

Our Verdict: It would be on the short list of organizations with technical support staff that could come to the site to assist with deployment. It is difficult to justify doing this in a casual community.

6. TeamSpeak

TeamSpeak proved itself from the get-go when we began using it during competition. It is not “community, bots, media and social all in one,”; it is still all about voice communication. It also didn’t use as many system resources as when the Discord client was running in the background.

Pros:

• Low-latency audio: Voice was not affected by bad internet connections.
• Self-hosting of a server with up to 32 simultaneous slots for free: No license fees to pay for self-hosting a server for up to 32 simultaneous slots.
• Less impact on system resources: This can be a factor if you are using an older PC or a lower spec system.

Cons:

• Old interface: A bit out-of-the-way from Discord, and could take some time to get used to.
•  Text experiences feel like an afterthought: Messaging and file sharing are just afterthoughts.
• Once you have used up the free amount of slots, there is a cost for a larger server: You will need to find a license or host it through a third party.

The verdict: When voice performance is at the top of the list, TeamSpeak is more easily recommended. The intensive nature will benefit competitive clans and esports teams. If the community spends as much time sharing posts, media, and messages as it does talking, it will likely be too sparse.

 7. Mumble

Mumble is a stripped down voice chat. It is open source and maintained by the software community, so there is no premium plan around. We had one aspect of the system which we found fascinating, and that’s positional audio. 

For supported games, the voice of another player can change depending on their role, providing valuable spatial information for team communication.

 Pros: 

• No subscription tiers: Doesn’t restrict access to beneficial features with a lock.
• Open-source code: Technical users are able to take a look at the project instead of a closed client.
• Extended use and reliable encryption of voice communication: Mumble was reliable in our tests and the voice communication was kept encrypted throughout the extended use.

Cons:

• Technical configuration: Its menus assume that the person using it knows a lot about voice configuration and servers.
• Plain presentation: The interface focuses more on function and takes less care of the decoration of what Discord users might expect.
• Less easy group onboarding: It took more work to get less technical members set up than sending them an invitation to Discord.

Our Verdict: Mumble is ideal for technically savvy games parties looking for a more streamlined voice channel without a second subscription. The hard part is keeping it running. Persuades the group to learn the setup.

 8. Stoat (Formerly Revolt)

It was obvious that Stoat was there as soon as we opened it. The app, which was called ‘Revolt’, features the same sort of sidebar for a server, list of channels, chat area, and list of users as is used in other apps. During migration, it is important that they are familiar, as they knew where they were without having to go through a long introduction.

Pros: 

• Open-source foundation: Code can be looked at and self-hosting provides technically savvy communities with another way to control their setup.
• Familiar navigation for Discord users: Less training required for moving a familiar community.
•  Active development: The project is still being developed with users who are actively seeking out an alternative to Discord.

Cons: 

• Less bot ecosystem: Discord bots don’t have direct counterparts to some of the moderation and community workflows available.
• The mobile experience is less refined than the desktop client. And this gap shows how much mobile app development affects the usability of a communication platform across devices. 
• Calls with many participants are not as smooth: In our tests, there were a couple of recordings of audio dropping out for no obvious reason when a large group of people joined a call.

Our Verdict: Stoat is a more user-friendly option to trial with an existing Discord community since its members will not need to learn how to operate the basic layout. The difference would be more noticeable if we were to test the bots and moderation tools your server relies on before moving everyone.