Learn how Macro CRM and Relaticle differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these crm systems is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
8 hours agoRepository age
1 yearVersion
v2026.11.6.1License
AGPL-3.0Repository
macro-inc/macro
Last 30 days
Last commit
9 hours agoRepository age
2 yearsVersion
v3.9.0License
AGPL-3.0Self-hosted
YesRepository
relaticle/relaticle
Both Macro CRM and Relaticle 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.
Macro CRM significantly outpaces Relaticle in community adoption with 6,228 stars compared to 1,828 stars on GitHub. This 3.4x difference suggests Macro CRM has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Macro CRM has 580 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Macro CRM is growing faster, adding 1,594 stars in the last 30 days (+34%) against adding 66 stars for Relaticle (+3.7%). Macro CRM is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Macro CRM last updated 8 hours ago and Relaticle 9 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Macro CRM uses Bash, Typescript, JSX, Python, Rust, C, Objective-C, Swift, Kotlin, Tauri while Relaticle leverages PHP, Laravel.
Relaticle has been in development longer, starting 2 years ago, compared to Macro CRM which began 1 year ago. This 1.1-year head start suggests Relaticle may have more mature features and established processes.
Both projects use the AGPL-3.0 license, providing identical terms for usage and distribution.
Both tools serve similar use cases in CRM Systems.
Relaticle provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Macro CRM 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