Learn how Hackatime and Ziit 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
9 hours agoRepository age
2 yearsLicense
MITSelf-hosted
YesRepository
hackclub/hackatime
Last 30 days
Last commit
17 days agoRepository age
2 yearsVersion
v1.2.2License
AGPL-3.0Self-hosted
YesRepository
0pandadev/ziit
Both Hackatime and Ziit 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.
Both tools have similar popularity levels, with Hackatime having 216 stars and Ziit having 258 stars on GitHub. In terms of developer contributions, Hackatime has 181 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Hackatime and Ziit are moving at much the same rate, adding 3 stars and adding 3 stars respectively over the last 30 days (+1.4% vs +1.2%). Neither is pulling away from the other on momentum alone.
Both projects show recent activity, with Hackatime last updated 9 hours ago and Ziit 17 days ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with Typescript. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Hackatime uses JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Ruby while Ziit leverages SCSS, Vue, Nuxt.js.
Both projects started around the same time, with Hackatime beginning 2 years ago and Ziit 2 years ago.
Hackatime uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than Ziit's AGPL-3.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Time Tracking.
Both Hackatime and Ziit offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.