Learn how Kutt and Lua.sh differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these link management & shorteners 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

Kutt appears to have several advantages over Lua.sh, particularly in popularity, maturity and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Kutt significantly outpaces Lua.sh in community adoption with 11,084 stars compared to 340 stars on GitHub. This 32.6x difference suggests Kutt has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Kutt has 1,504 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Kutt and Lua.sh are moving at much the same rate, adding 67 stars and adding 2 stars respectively over the last 30 days (+0.6% vs +0.6%). Neither is pulling away from the other on momentum alone.
Both projects show recent activity, with Kutt last updated 6 days ago and Lua.sh 1 day ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Lua.sh leverages CSS, Vue, PHP, Laravel.
Kutt has been in development longer, starting 9 years ago, compared to Lua.sh which began 2 years ago. This 6.8-year head start suggests Kutt may have more mature features and established processes.
Kutt uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than Lua.sh's AGPL-3.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Link Management & Shorteners. However, they also have distinct specializations: Lua.sh extends into Web Analytics.
Both Kutt and Lua.sh offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.