Best streaming protocol: LL-HLS vs WebRTC comparison

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Best streaming protocol LL HLS WebRTC comparison

When it comes to live streaming, it’s important to choose the right protocol to make sure your streaming experience is smooth and enjoyable. Two popular protocols in this field are Low-Latency HTTP Live Streaming (LL-HLS) and Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC). Each of these protocols has its own strengths and is great for different types of streaming applications.

In this article, we’ll take a deep dive into LL-HLS and WebRTC, comparing factors like performance, latency, scalability, and other key aspects to help you decide which protocol is the best fit for your needs. If you’re curious to learn more, let’s dive in!

Understanding LL-HLS

In this section, we delve into Low Latency HTTP Live Streaming (LL-HLS), exploring its architecture, key features, and advantages. We’ll examine how LL-HLS works and why it is favored for large-scale broadcasting scenarios:

What is LL-HLS? 

Low-Latency HLS is an improvement on the Apple HTTP Live Streaming protocol, aimed at bringing down latency effectively from what had usually been associated with HLS. LL-HLS can reach latencies as low as 2 to 3 seconds through features like Chunked Transfer-Encoding and Partial Segment Delivery.

Advantages of LL-HLS 

LL-HLS retains most of the benefits of traditional HLS, which include being widely compatible with most devices and platforms, easy integration with already-deployed Content Delivery Networks, and having good support for adaptive bitrate streaming. Reduced latency is applicable in areas where near real-time interaction is useful—for example, sports broadcasting or live auctions.

Challenges with LL-HLS 

Even with its advancements, LL-HLS is not without its hurdles. The quest for reduced latency brings added complexity to the encoding and packaging processes. Moreover, maintaining consistently low latency across diverse network conditions and a wide range of devices poses significant challenges. When it comes to scenarios requiring sub-second latency, LL-HLS still falls short compared to WebRTC.

Understanding WebRTC

Here, we explore Web Real-Time Communication (WebRTC), focusing on its core functionalities and benefits. This section will cover the technical aspects of WebRTC and highlight its suitability for real-time interactive applications:

What is WebRTC? 

Web Real-Time Communication is a cool protocol made for chatting directly with friends on the web super fast. It’s all about making browsers and devices talk to each other without needing a middleman server. This is awesome for things like video calls and playing games with friends online.

Advantages of WebRTC 

The best part about WebRTC is how quick it is – usually less than half a second delay. That’s perfect for things that need to happen in real-time. Plus, it works on most new browsers and has special features to handle different network situations, so your chats will always be smooth and reliable.

Challenges with WebRTC 

Despite its advantages, WebRTC’s design can pose scalability issues, especially for large-scale broadcasts. Deploying WebRTC in such contexts often requires complex infrastructure to manage peer connections and maintain consistent quality for all users. Moreover, integrating WebRTC with existing CDNs can be less straightforward, sometimes requiring custom solutions for effective large-scale distribution.

LL-HLS vs. WebRTC: A Comparative Analysis

This section provides a side-by-side comparison of LL-HLS and WebRTC, evaluating their strengths, limitations, and ideal use cases. By understanding the differences and similarities, you can make a decision on which protocol best meets your needs:


Latency plays a vital role in live streaming, and WebRTC clearly excels in this area with latencies under 500 milliseconds. This is markedly lower than the 2-3 seconds typically experienced with LL-HLS. For applications that demand immediate interaction, like remote piloting or live customer support, WebRTC is undoubtedly the best choice.


LL-HLS shines when it comes to scalability, thanks to its CDN-friendly design. It can effortlessly distribute streams to a large audience without requiring significant changes to the infrastructure. In contrast, WebRTC encounters challenges in this area. Scaling WebRTC often demands advanced server configurations, such as Selective Forwarding Units (SFUs) or Media Servers, to manage multiple peer connections effectively.


In terms of compatibility, LL-HLS holds a distinct advantage. HLS, and by extension LL-HLS, is widely supported across nearly all devices and platforms, including iOS, Android, and most web browsers. While WebRTC enjoys support from modern browsers, older systems and certain mobile platforms may face compatibility issues, often requiring additional workarounds or fallback solutions.

Quality of service (QoS)

Quality of Service (QoS) is a crucial factor. LL-HLS excels here due to its adaptive bitrate streaming, which automatically adjusts video quality based on the viewer’s network conditions. This feature ensures a consistent viewing experience with minimal buffering. While WebRTC can adapt video quality dynamically, its effectiveness is less predictable, depending largely on the implementation and specific network conditions.


Both protocols come equipped with robust security features. LL-HLS uses HTTPS for secure transmission and can seamlessly integrate with DRM systems for content protection. WebRTC, on the other hand, includes built-in encryption (SRTP for media and DTLS for data) to ensure secure peer-to-peer communication. Both protocols are capable of providing a secure streaming experience, though specific requirements of the application may make one more suitable than the other.

Implementation complexity 

Implementing LL-HLS tends to be straightforward, especially for those already utilizing HLS. Many existing HLS workflows can be adapted to LL-HLS with minor adjustments, whereas WebRTC often demands a complex setup for large-scale deployments. This involves setting up TURN servers for NAT traversal, implementing SFUs for multi-peer communication, and ensuring robust signaling mechanisms.

Cost considerations 

When it comes to costing custom-built solutions, LL-HLS might hold an edge. The protocolsoftware’s capability to easily work with existing CDNs can help cut down on infrastructure costs by using global distribution networks. However, WebRTC could potentially increase expenses as it needs specialized servers and uses more bandwidth in peer-to-peer configurations.

Latency2-3 seconds<500 milliseconds
ScalabilityExcellent (CDN-friendly)Challenging (requires complex infrastructure)
CompatibilityBroad (supports most devices/platforms)Good (modern browsers, some mobile issues)
Quality of Service (QoS)Adaptive bitrate streamingDynamic quality adjustment
SecurityHTTPS, DRM integrationSRTP, DTLS encryption
Implementation ComplexityModerate (adapts from HLS)High (requires setup of TURN/SFU servers)
CostLower (leverages existing CDNs)Potentially higher (specialized infrastructure)

Informative table with extensive data about LL-HLS vs WebRTC

Use this data to make informed decisions when comparing LL-HLS vs WebRTC.

Use cases and applications 

In this section, we outline various real-world applications for both LL-HLS and WebRTC. By examining specific use cases, you’ll gain insights into how each protocol excels in different scenarios, helping you choose the right solution for your requirements:

LL-HLS applications 

LL-HLS is ideal for large-scale broadcast situations where slightly higher latency is acceptable, but consistent quality and broad compatibility are key. It is particularly suited for sports streaming, live events, and media broadcasts.

WebRTC applications 

WebRTC is great for situations where real-time interaction is needed because it has very low latency. It works really well for things like video calls, live chatting, playing games online, controlling things remotely, or anything else where you need to get quick responses and interact with others in real time.

LL-HLS vs WebRTC: which should you use?

Choosing between LL-HLS and WebRTC hinges on your application’s specific needs. LL-HLS is advantageous for its broad compatibility, seamless integration with existing infrastructures, and excellent scalability, making it ideal for large-scale broadcasts where slight latency isn’t a major concern. 

On the other hand, WebRTC provides a really low delay which is great for interactive applications that need to happen in real-time. 

Both protocols have both strengths and difficulties. Knowing these little details will help you to make a smart choice. Whether you want to broadcast a big live event to lots of people or allow video chats for a small group, picking the right protocol will make sure everything runs smoothly and looks great!

If you’re interested in testing either LL-HLS or WebRTC, you’re in luck, as Ceeblue supports both protocols (as well as others) from a unified, simple interface / API.



Source Code

Prebuilt NPM Package


Keep up to date with the latest from Ceeblue

More To Explore

Live Video Transcoding and Streaming in Under a Second. Really.

Follow Us





©2021 Ceeblue B.V. All Rights Reserved. Privacy & Cookies Policy