Learn how ActivityWatch and TimeScribe differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these time tracking tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Both ActivityWatch and TimeScribe have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
ActivityWatch significantly outpaces TimeScribe in community adoption with 19,011 stars compared to 910 stars on GitHub. This 20.9x difference suggests ActivityWatch has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, ActivityWatch has 1,020 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
TimeScribe is growing faster, adding 20 stars in the last 30 days (+2.2%) against adding 252 stars for ActivityWatch (+1.3%). TimeScribe is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with ActivityWatch last updated 2 days ago and TimeScribe 8 days ago.
ActivityWatch uses Bash, Python while TimeScribe leverages JavaScript, CSS, Typescript, Vue, PHP, Laravel.
ActivityWatch has been in development longer, starting 10 years ago, compared to TimeScribe which began 2 years ago. This 8.9-year head start suggests ActivityWatch may have more mature features and established processes.
The projects use different licenses: ActivityWatch is licensed under MPL-2.0 while TimeScribe uses GPL-3.0. Consider the licensing requirements when choosing for your project.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Time Tracking.
TimeScribe provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while ActivityWatch may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.