Learn how Kap and ScreenVivid differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these screen recording tools is best for you.
Stars
Forks
Last commit
Repository age
License
Warning: This project hasn't been updated in 1 year and might not be actively maintained anymore.
Auto-fetched .

Stars
Forks
Last commit
Repository age
License
Warning: This project hasn't been updated in 4 months and might not be actively maintained anymore.
Auto-fetched .

Both Kap and ScreenVivid have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Kap significantly outpaces ScreenVivid in community adoption with 19,211 stars compared to 165 stars on GitHub. This 116.4x difference suggests Kap has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Kap has 875 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
ScreenVivid shows more recent development activity with its last commit 4 months ago, while Kap was last updated 1 year ago. This suggests ScreenVivid is being more actively maintained.
Kap uses JavaScript, Typescript, JSX, Next.js while ScreenVivid leverages Bash, Python.
Kap has been in development longer, starting 10 years ago, compared to ScreenVivid which began 2 years ago. This 8.2-year head start suggests Kap 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 Screen Recording.