Learn how OpenScreen and ShareX differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these screen recording tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
18 hours agoRepository age
8 monthsVersion
v2.1.2License
MITRepository
openscreen
Last 30 days
Last commit
1 day agoRepository age
13 yearsVersion
v21.0.0License
GPL-3.0Repository
sharex/sharex
Both OpenScreen and ShareX 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.
ShareX significantly outpaces OpenScreen in community adoption with 40,398 stars compared to 4,890 stars on GitHub. This 8.3x difference suggests ShareX has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, ShareX has 3,999 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
OpenScreen is growing faster, adding 1,666 stars in the last 30 days (+52%) against adding 655 stars for ShareX (+1.6%). OpenScreen is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with OpenScreen last updated 18 hours ago and ShareX 1 day ago.
ShareX has been in development longer, starting 13 years ago, compared to OpenScreen which began 8 months ago. This 12.6-year head start suggests ShareX may have more mature features and established processes.
OpenScreen uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than ShareX's GPL-3.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Screen Recording. However, they also have distinct specializations: ShareX extends into Screenshot Utilities.