Learn how Cinny and Element 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
Repository age
Version
License
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Element appears to have several advantages over Cinny, particularly in popularity, maturity and features. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Element significantly outpaces Cinny in community adoption with 13,403 stars compared to 3,858 stars on GitHub. This 3.5x difference suggests Element has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Element has 2,737 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Cinny is growing faster, adding 52 stars in the last 30 days (+1.4%) against adding 84 stars for Element (+0.6%). Cinny is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Cinny last updated 10 days ago and Element 17 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Typescript, JSX. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Cinny uses SCSS while Element leverages Bash, Python, Perl.
Element has been in development longer, starting 11 years ago, compared to Cinny which began 5 years ago. This 5.8-year head start suggests Element may have more mature features and established processes.
Both projects use the AGPL-3.0 license, providing identical terms for usage and distribution.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Team Chat & Messaging, Encrypted Communication. However, they also have distinct specializations: Cinny also focuses on Decentralized Social Networks.
Element provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Cinny 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