Learn how Countly and Trench 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.
Stars
Forks
Last commit
Repository age
Self-hosted
Auto-fetched .

Auto-fetched .

Both Countly and Trench have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Countly significantly outpaces Trench in community adoption with 5,851 stars compared to 1,620 stars on GitHub. This 3.6x difference suggests Countly has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Countly has 981 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Both projects show recent activity, with Countly last updated 9 hours ago and Trench 14 days ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, Bash, Typescript. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Trench leverages CSS, NestJS.
Countly has been in development longer, starting 14 years ago, compared to Trench which began 2 years ago. This 12.5-year head start suggests Countly may have more mature features and established processes.
Trench is licensed under MIT, while Countly's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Product Analytics. However, they also have distinct specializations: Countly also focuses on Web Analytics while Trench extends into Event Streaming Platforms, Stream Processing.
Both Countly and Trench offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs