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
Repository age
Version
License
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Repository

Both Atomic CRM and Macro CRM 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.
Macro CRM significantly outpaces Atomic CRM in community adoption with 3,884 stars compared to 1,202 stars on GitHub. This 3.2x difference suggests Macro CRM has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Atomic CRM has 773 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Macro CRM is growing faster, adding 3,200 stars in the last 30 days (+468%) against adding 45 stars for Atomic CRM (+3.9%). Macro CRM is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Atomic CRM last updated 1 day ago and Macro CRM 12 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, C, Rust, Objective-C, Swift, Kotlin, Tauri.
Atomic CRM has been in development longer, starting 2 years ago, compared to Macro CRM which began 10 months 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
vs
vs