Learn how Flow and Ladybird differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these web browsers is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
5 months agoRepository age
2 yearsVersion
v0.12.0License
GPL-3.0Repository
flow-browser
Last 30 days
Last commit
8 hours agoRepository age
2 yearsLicense
BSD-2-ClauseRepository
ladybird
Ladybird appears to have several advantages over Flow, particularly in popularity, activity and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Ladybird significantly outpaces Flow in community adoption with 66,807 stars compared to 1,092 stars on GitHub. This 61.2x difference suggests Ladybird has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Ladybird has 3,194 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Flow is growing faster, adding 14 stars in the last 30 days (+1.3%) against adding 406 stars for Ladybird (+0.6%). Flow is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Ladybird shows more recent development activity with its last commit 8 hours ago, while Flow was last updated 5 months ago. This suggests Ladybird is being more actively maintained.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Flow uses Typescript, JSX while Ladybird leverages Bash, Python, C, Objective-C, Java, Swift, C++, Kotlin.
Both projects started around the same time, with Flow beginning 2 years ago and Ladybird 2 years ago.
Ladybird uses the BSD-2-Clause license, which is more permissive than Flow's GPL-3.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Web Browsers.