RustDesk vs AnyDesk: open source or the better codec?

These two get compared constantly, and for good reason: they look alike, they work alike, and RustDesk has openly positioned itself as the open-source answer to tools like AnyDesk. The interesting differences are not in the feature grid. They are in who operates the infrastructure your session runs through, what happens when something breaks, and what each one costs you in time rather than money.

The short answer

Choose RustDesk if you want to pay nothing, want the code to be auditable, or want to run the whole system on servers you control so that no third party is involved in your sessions at all. Choose AnyDesk if you want something that connects immediately, stays usable on a genuinely bad connection, and comes with a company to hold responsible. For most people the deciding question is not which is better software. It is whether self-hosting sounds like a benefit or a chore. If it sounds like a benefit, RustDesk is one of the best things in this category. If it sounds like a chore, AnyDesk will make you happier.

Where RustDesk genuinely wins

Cost, transparency and control, and all three are real advantages rather than consolation prizes. It is free with no per-device arithmetic as your machine count grows, which matters more than it sounds once you have a laptop, a desktop and a Mac mini. It is open source under the AGPL, so the code can be inspected by anyone, which is a meaningfully stronger position than trusting a vendor's description of its own encryption. Most importantly it can be fully self-hosted: run your own ID and relay servers and no third-party infrastructure touches your sessions at all. No proprietary tool in this category can offer that, and for anyone with a home lab it is often the whole argument. It also treats Linux as a first-class platform on both ends.

Where AnyDesk genuinely wins

Responsiveness on bad networks, and it is not close. AnyDesk's codec was designed around latency rather than image fidelity, and on hotel Wi-Fi, a tethered phone, or a connection across an ocean it tends to stay usable where other tools become unpleasant to drive. This is its central engineering claim and it holds up in practice. The client is also small and can be run without a full installation, which is genuinely useful on a machine you would rather not modify. Beyond performance, it offers the things an unpaid project structurally cannot: a support contract, a company accountable for uptime, an address book and unattended access that work without you standing up any infrastructure, and an installer your less technical colleagues will not be frightened of.

Security: two different bargains

Neither option is simply safer than the other, and it is worth being precise about what you are actually trading. RustDesk's advantage is that the code is open and the infrastructure can be yours. Its default configuration deserves a clear-eyed look though: out of the box, connection setup is routed through relay servers operated by the project rather than by you. Sessions are encrypted, but you are trusting infrastructure that somebody else runs, and if that is not acceptable then self-hosting is the answer. Open source also does not mean audited. It means auditable, which is only worth something if someone with the right expertise actually looks.

AnyDesk's bargain is the ordinary one you make with any commercial vendor: you cannot inspect the code, so you are trusting the company's engineering and its disclosure practices. On that second point there is a specific event worth knowing about. In early 2024 AnyDesk disclosed a security incident affecting its production systems. It revoked and replaced its code-signing certificates and invalidated passwords for its web portal, advising customers to change them, and stated that it had found no evidence that end-user devices were affected. The disclosure and the certificate rotation were the right responses. It is still a reasonable data point if your reason for reading this comparison is that you would rather not depend on a vendor at all.

One warning applies equally to both and to everything else in this category. Remote access tools are the favourite instrument of phone scammers, and AnyDesk in particular is named constantly in those scams because it is well known and installs quickly. Never install any remote access tool because somebody who called you asked you to, whoever they claim to be. That is a property of the category rather than a criticism of either product, and the failure is always in the phone call rather than the code.

On a Mac specifically

Neither is Mac-first, and both make you feel it during setup. Each needs Screen Recording and Accessibility permissions granted in System Settings before it can do anything useful, and each is built around a broadly Windows-shaped idea of remote support rather than around Apple hardware. RustDesk's macOS build has historically been the fussier of the two to get permissions working on, though it has improved. Neither is tuned for touch, so driving a Mac from an iPad with either is workable rather than pleasant: you get a mouse pointer bolted onto a touchscreen rather than an input model designed for fingers.

If your actual job is supporting a mixed fleet of machines from a desk, that is fine and one of these two is probably right for you. If your job is reaching your own Mac from your own iPad, the Mac-focused tools are a better fit than either, and it is worth reading a comparison aimed at that instead.

Which should you pick

• You want nobody else's servers involved at all: RustDesk, self-hosted.
• You want a bill of zero and do not mind the public relays: RustDesk as it ships.
• Your connection is the problem, not your budget: AnyDesk.
• You need unattended access and an address book without running a server: AnyDesk.
• You support non-technical people who need to install something quickly: AnyDesk.
• You are a Linux household: RustDesk, comfortably.
• You mainly want your own Mac on your own iPhone or iPad: neither was designed for that.

Where Servey fits

Both of these are general-purpose tools built to reach anything from anything, and it shows the moment you try to drive your own Mac from an iPad. Servey does one thing instead: it puts your Mac in your pocket. You get crystal-clear screen mirroring and a real terminal - a genuine shell on your Mac, not a web console - in a single app, one tap apart, with an on-screen trackpad designed for fingers rather than a pointer borrowed from a desktop. On your own Wi-Fi it streams hardware-encoded HEVC, so text stays sharp when you pinch to zoom. Away from home it moves automatically to a private, end-to-end encrypted peer-to-peer link between your own two devices, holding up on the mobile networks and CGNAT that defeat most tools.

Setup is signing in with Google on both devices: no relay to choose, no ports to forward, no infrastructure to maintain. The trades are deliberate and worth stating plainly. Servey is Apple-only, it cannot be self-hosted, and it reaches your own Mac rather than any machine anywhere. If running your own infrastructure is the entire point for you, that is what RustDesk is for and it does it well. If you need to fix a relative's Windows laptop over a terrible connection, that is AnyDesk. Servey launches soon from $1.99 a month, or ₹99 in India, and the waitlist is open now.

Bottom line

RustDesk is the better answer if you want control, transparency and a bill of zero, and you are comfortable running a server to get the most out of it. AnyDesk is the better answer if you want a finished product that connects fast, survives a bad network, and comes with somebody to call. Both are legitimate, and the deciding question is not which is better software but whether infrastructure is something you enjoy owning. If your honest answer is that you would rather own none of it, and the machine you actually want to reach is your own Mac, Servey is the third path: nothing to host, nothing to configure, a genuine shell and a razor-sharp screen on your iPhone or iPad. It launches soon.