Learn how Countly and Umami differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these web analytics is best for you.
Stars
Forks
Last commit
Repository age
Self-hosted
Auto-fetched .

Auto-fetched .

Both Countly and Umami 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.
Umami significantly outpaces Countly in community adoption with 36,296 stars compared to 5,850 stars on GitHub. This 6.2x difference suggests Umami has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Umami has 6,968 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Both projects show recent activity, with Countly last updated 1 day ago and Umami 1 day ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, Typescript. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Countly uses Bash while Umami leverages CSS, JSX, Next.js.
Countly has been in development longer, starting 14 years ago, compared to Umami which began 6 years ago. This 8.3-year head start suggests Countly may have more mature features and established processes.
Umami is licensed under MIT, while Countly's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Web Analytics. However, they also have distinct specializations: Countly also focuses on Product Analytics.
Both Countly and Umami 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
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs