Learn how Cozy and PearPass differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these security & privacy tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Repository

Cozy appears to have several advantages over PearPass, particularly in popularity, maturity and features. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Cozy leads in popularity with 1,272 stars vs 531 stars for PearPass. The 140% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, Cozy has 142 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
PearPass is growing faster, adding 11 stars in the last 30 days (+2.1%) against adding 0 stars for Cozy (0%). PearPass is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Cozy last updated 19 days ago and PearPass 5 days ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, Bash. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Cozy uses CSS, Golang while PearPass leverages Typescript, JSX.
Cozy has been in development longer, starting 10 years ago, compared to PearPass which began 8 months ago. This 9.5-year head start suggests Cozy may have more mature features and established processes.
The projects use different licenses: Cozy is licensed under AGPL-3.0 while PearPass uses Apache-2.0. Consider the licensing requirements when choosing for your project.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Security & Privacy. However, they also have distinct specializations: Cozy also focuses on Cloud File Sync & Share, Cloud Storage while PearPass extends into Password Managers.
Cozy provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while PearPass may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.