Learn how Macro Chat and Zulip differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these team chat & messaging tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Repository

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

Zulip appears to have several advantages over Macro Chat, particularly in popularity, maturity and features. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Zulip significantly outpaces Macro Chat in community adoption with 25,812 stars compared to 4,175 stars on GitHub. This 6.2x difference suggests Zulip has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Zulip has 10,181 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Macro Chat is growing faster, adding 3,460 stars in the last 30 days (+484%) against adding 214 stars for Zulip (+0.8%). Macro Chat is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Macro Chat last updated 8 hours ago and Zulip 18 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, Python. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Macro Chat uses JSX, Rust, C, Objective-C, Swift, Kotlin, Tauri while Zulip leverages Ruby.
Zulip has been in development longer, starting 11 years ago, compared to Macro Chat which began 10 months ago. This 10.3-year head start suggests Zulip may have more mature features and established processes.
The projects use different licenses: Macro Chat is licensed under AGPL-3.0 while Zulip uses Apache-2.0. Consider the licensing requirements when choosing for your project.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Team Chat & Messaging.
Zulip provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Macro Chat may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs