Learn how OpenReplay and Trench differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these product analytics is best for you.
Stars
Forks
Last commit
Repository age
Self-hosted
Auto-fetched .

Auto-fetched .

Both OpenReplay and Trench have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
OpenReplay significantly outpaces Trench in community adoption with 11,980 stars compared to 1,623 stars on GitHub. This 7.4x difference suggests OpenReplay has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, OpenReplay has 728 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Both projects show recent activity, with OpenReplay last updated 14 hours ago and Trench 18 days ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: OpenReplay uses JSX, Python, Golang, C, Objective-C, Ruby, Swift, Kotlin, MATLAB while Trench leverages NestJS.
OpenReplay has been in development longer, starting 5 years ago, compared to Trench which began 2 years ago. This 3.5-year head start suggests OpenReplay may have more mature features and established processes.
Trench is licensed under MIT, while OpenReplay's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Product Analytics. However, they also have distinct specializations: OpenReplay also focuses on Performance Monitoring (APM) while Trench extends into Event Streaming Platforms, Stream Processing.
Both OpenReplay and Trench offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.