Learn how Metabase and Shaper differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these data visualization tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
6 hours agoRepository age
12 yearsVersion
v0.64.1Self-hosted
YesRepository
metabase/metabase
Last 30 days
Last commit
10 hours agoRepository age
2 yearsVersion
v0.26.1License
MPL-2.0Repository
taleshape-com/shaper
Both Metabase and Shaper have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Metabase significantly outpaces Shaper in community adoption with 49,845 stars compared to 1,265 stars on GitHub. This 39.4x difference suggests Metabase has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Metabase has 6,929 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Shaper is growing faster, adding 14 stars in the last 30 days (+1.1%) against adding 415 stars for Metabase (+0.8%). Shaper is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Metabase last updated 6 hours ago and Shaper 10 hours ago.
Metabase has been in development longer, starting 12 years ago, compared to Shaper which began 2 years ago. This 10.4-year head start suggests Metabase may have more mature features and established processes.
Shaper is licensed under MPL-2.0, while Metabase's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Data Visualization, BI Platforms.
Metabase provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Shaper may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.