Learn how Atomic CRM and Macro CRM differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these crm systems is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
9 hours agoRepository age
2 yearsVersion
v1.6.0License
MITRepository
marmelab/atomic-crm
Last 30 days
Last commit
3 hours agoRepository age
1 yearVersion
v2026.10.18.0License
AGPL-3.0Repository
macro-inc/macro
Atomic CRM appears to have several advantages over Macro CRM, particularly in growth, maturity and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Macro CRM significantly outpaces Atomic CRM in community adoption with 4,778 stars compared to 1,391 stars on GitHub. This 3.4x difference suggests Macro CRM has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Atomic CRM has 880 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Atomic CRM is growing faster, adding 129 stars in the last 30 days (+10%) against adding 414 stars for Macro CRM (+9.5%). Atomic CRM is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Atomic CRM last updated 9 hours ago and Macro CRM 3 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, Typescript, JSX. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Macro CRM leverages CSS, Bash, Python, Rust, C, Objective-C, Swift, Kotlin, Tauri.
Atomic CRM has been in development longer, starting 2 years ago, compared to Macro CRM which began 1 year ago. This 1.5-year head start suggests Atomic CRM may have more mature features and established processes.
Atomic CRM uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than Macro CRM's AGPL-3.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in CRM Systems.
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs