Learn how Countly and OpenReplay differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these product analytics is best for you.
Both Countly and OpenReplay have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, activity, technology, maturity and features when making your decision.
OpenReplay leads in popularity with 12,401 stars vs 5,886 stars for Countly. The 111% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, Countly has 981 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Both projects show recent activity, with Countly last updated 8 hours ago and OpenReplay 20 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, Bash, Typescript. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: OpenReplay leverages CSS, JSX, Python, Golang, C, Objective-C, Swift, Ruby, Kotlin, MATLAB.
Countly has been in development longer, starting 14 years ago, compared to OpenReplay which began 5 years ago. This 9.0-year head start suggests Countly may have more mature features and established processes.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Product Analytics. However, they also have distinct specializations: Countly also focuses on Web Analytics while OpenReplay extends into Performance Monitoring (APM).
Both Countly and OpenReplay offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.
Countlyvs
PostHogActivity score
Stars
Forks
Last commit
Activity score
Stars
Forks
Last commit
Repository age
Version
Self-hosted
Repository
Self-hosted
Repository
Sent – A unified API for sending messages across SMS, RCS, and apps like WhatsApp.
