Learn how Lua.sh and Sink 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
Repository

Sink appears to have several advantages over Lua.sh, particularly in popularity, growth and activity. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Sink significantly outpaces Lua.sh in community adoption with 7,030 stars compared to 338 stars on GitHub. This 20.8x difference suggests Sink has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Sink has 5,118 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Sink is growing faster, adding 72 stars in the last 30 days (+1%) against adding 2 stars for Lua.sh (+0.6%). Sink is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Sink shows more recent development activity with its last commit 11 days ago, while Lua.sh was last updated 4 months ago. This suggests Sink is being more actively maintained.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Vue. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Lua.sh uses PHP, Laravel while Sink leverages Typescript, Nuxt.js.
Both projects started around the same time, with Lua.sh beginning 2 years ago and Sink 2 years ago.
Both projects use the AGPL-3.0 license, providing identical terms for usage and distribution.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Link Management & Shorteners. However, they also have distinct specializations: Lua.sh also focuses on Web Analytics.
Lua.sh provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Sink may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.