Learn how Hackatime and TimeScribe differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these time tracking tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Hackatime appears to have several advantages over TimeScribe, particularly in growth, activity and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
TimeScribe significantly outpaces Hackatime in community adoption with 885 stars compared to 183 stars on GitHub. This 4.8x difference suggests TimeScribe has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Hackatime has 157 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Hackatime is growing faster, adding 25 stars in the last 30 days (+16%) against adding 17 stars for TimeScribe (+2%). Hackatime is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Hackatime shows more recent development activity with its last commit 7 hours ago, while TimeScribe was last updated 3 months ago. This suggests Hackatime is being more actively maintained.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Typescript. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Hackatime uses Bash, Ruby while TimeScribe leverages Vue, PHP, Laravel.
Both projects started around the same time, with Hackatime beginning 2 years ago and TimeScribe 2 years ago.
Hackatime uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than TimeScribe's GPL-3.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Time Tracking.
Both Hackatime and TimeScribe offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.