Learn how Fumadocs and xyd differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these technical writing platforms is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
9 hours agoRepository age
3 yearsVersion
0.3.1License
MITRepository
fuma-nama/fumadocs
Last 30 days
Last commit
10 days agoRepository age
2 yearsVersion
v0.1.0-alpha.13License
MITRepository
livesession/xyd
Fumadocs appears to have several advantages over xyd, particularly in popularity, growth and maturity. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Fumadocs significantly outpaces xyd in community adoption with 13,573 stars compared to 115 stars on GitHub. This 118.0x difference suggests Fumadocs has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Fumadocs has 752 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Fumadocs is growing faster, adding 248 stars in the last 30 days (+1.9%) against adding 1 stars for xyd (+0.9%). Fumadocs is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Fumadocs last updated 9 hours ago and xyd 10 days ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, JSX. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Fumadocs uses Python, Next.js, Golang, Tanstack Start.
Fumadocs has been in development longer, starting 3 years ago, compared to xyd which began 2 years ago. This 1.4-year head start suggests Fumadocs may have more mature features and established processes.
Both projects use the MIT license, providing identical terms for usage and distribution.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Technical Writing Platforms.