Learn how HyperDX and OpenObserve differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these performance monitoring (apm) tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

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

Both HyperDX and OpenObserve 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.
OpenObserve leads in popularity with 21,315 stars vs 9,842 stars for HyperDX. The 117% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, OpenObserve has 1,038 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
OpenObserve is growing faster, adding 1,005 stars in the last 30 days (+4.9%) against adding 155 stars for HyperDX (+1.6%). OpenObserve is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with HyperDX last updated 10 hours ago and OpenObserve 7 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, SCSS. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: HyperDX uses JSX, Next.js, Golang while OpenObserve leverages Rust, Vue.
Both projects started around the same time, with HyperDX beginning 3 years ago and OpenObserve 4 years ago.
HyperDX uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than OpenObserve's AGPL-3.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Performance Monitoring (APM), Log Management. However, they also have distinct specializations: HyperDX also focuses on Error Tracking.
Both HyperDX and OpenObserve offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.