Learn how Actual and Monetr differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these budgeting apps is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
10 hours agoRepository age
5 yearsVersion
v26.10.0License
MITSelf-hosted
YesRepository
actualbudget/actual
Last 30 days
Last commit
7 hours agoRepository age
5 yearsVersion
v1.21.1License
FSL-1.1-MITRepository
monetr/monetr
Actual appears to have several advantages over Monetr, particularly in popularity, growth, licensing and features. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Actual significantly outpaces Monetr in community adoption with 29,877 stars compared to 690 stars on GitHub. This 43.3x difference suggests Actual has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Actual has 3,223 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Actual is growing faster, adding 629 stars in the last 30 days (+2.2%) against adding 5 stars for Monetr (+0.7%). Actual is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Actual last updated 10 hours ago and Monetr 7 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, Typescript, JSX, SCSS. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Monetr leverages CSS, Bash, Next.js, Golang.
Both projects started around the same time, with Actual beginning 5 years ago and Monetr 5 years ago.
Actual uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than Monetr's FSL-1.1-MIT license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Budgeting Apps.
Actual provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Monetr may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.