Learn how Campfire and Macro Chat differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these team chat & messaging tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
15 hours agoRepository age
1 yearVersion
v1.5.6License
MITSelf-hosted
YesRepository
once-campfire
Last 30 days
Last commit
8 hours agoRepository age
1 yearVersion
v2026.11.2.0License
AGPL-3.0Repository
macro-inc/macro
Both Campfire and Macro Chat 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.
Both tools have similar popularity levels, with Campfire having 4,813 stars and Macro Chat having 6,083 stars on GitHub. In terms of developer contributions, Campfire has 824 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Macro Chat is growing faster, adding 1,543 stars in the last 30 days (+34%) against adding 142 stars for Campfire (+3%). Macro Chat is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Campfire last updated 15 hours ago and Macro Chat 8 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Campfire uses Ruby while Macro Chat leverages Bash, Typescript, JSX, Python, Rust, C, Objective-C, Swift, Kotlin, Tauri.
Both projects started around the same time, with Campfire beginning 1 year ago and Macro Chat 1 year ago.
Campfire uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than Macro Chat's AGPL-3.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Team Chat & Messaging.
Campfire provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Macro Chat may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs