Learn how Firefly III and YAFFA differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these budgeting apps 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
Self-hosted
Repository

Both Firefly III and YAFFA have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Firefly III significantly outpaces YAFFA in community adoption with 24,865 stars compared to 110 stars on GitHub. This 226.0x difference suggests Firefly III has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Firefly III has 2,327 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
YAFFA is growing faster, adding 2 stars in the last 30 days (+1.9%) against adding 296 stars for Firefly III (+1.2%). YAFFA is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Firefly III last updated 13 hours ago and YAFFA 5 days ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, SCSS, Vue, PHP, Laravel. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Firefly III uses Bash.
Firefly III has been in development longer, starting 12 years ago, compared to YAFFA which began 6 years ago. This 6.3-year head start suggests Firefly III may have more mature features and established processes.
YAFFA uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than Firefly III's AGPL-3.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Budgeting Apps. However, they also have distinct specializations: YAFFA extends into Investment Tracking.
Both Firefly III and YAFFA offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.