Learn how FluidVoice and OpenWispr differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these voice dictation tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Repository

OpenWispr appears to have several advantages over FluidVoice, particularly in growth and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Both tools have similar popularity levels, with FluidVoice having 11,679 stars and OpenWispr having 8,434 stars on GitHub. In terms of developer contributions, OpenWispr has 1,039 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
OpenWispr is growing faster, adding 2,782 stars in the last 30 days (+49%) against adding 873 stars for FluidVoice (+8.1%). OpenWispr is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with FluidVoice last updated 12 hours ago and OpenWispr 11 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, Bash, Swift. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: OpenWispr leverages CSS, Typescript, JSX, C.
Both projects started around the same time, with FluidVoice beginning 1 year ago and OpenWispr 1 year ago.
OpenWispr uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than FluidVoice's GPL-3.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Voice Dictation.