Learn how Chartbrew and Shaper differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these data visualization tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
2 days agoRepository age
7 yearsVersion
v6.0.1License
MITSelf-hosted
YesRepository
chartbrew/chartbrew
Last 30 days
Last commit
19 hours agoRepository age
2 yearsVersion
v0.27.2License
MPL-2.0Repository
taleshape-com/shaper
Chartbrew appears to have several advantages over Shaper, particularly in popularity, maturity, licensing and features. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Chartbrew significantly outpaces Shaper in community adoption with 4,096 stars compared to 1,278 stars on GitHub. This 3.2x difference suggests Chartbrew has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Chartbrew has 458 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Shaper is growing faster, adding 19 stars in the last 30 days (+1.5%) against adding 34 stars for Chartbrew (+0.8%). Shaper is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Chartbrew last updated 2 days ago and Shaper 19 hours ago.
Chartbrew uses JavaScript, CSS, Bash, JSX while Shaper leverages Golang.
Chartbrew has been in development longer, starting 7 years ago, compared to Shaper which began 2 years ago. This 5.7-year head start suggests Chartbrew may have more mature features and established processes.
Chartbrew uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than Shaper's MPL-2.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Data Visualization, BI Platforms. However, they also have distinct specializations: Chartbrew also focuses on Low-Code/No-Code.
Chartbrew provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Shaper may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.