Learn how OpenSign and Wraft differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these e-signature platforms is best for you.
Last 30 days

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

OpenSign appears to have several advantages over Wraft, particularly in popularity and growth. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
OpenSign significantly outpaces Wraft in community adoption with 7,103 stars compared to 167 stars on GitHub. This 42.5x difference suggests OpenSign has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, OpenSign has 843 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
OpenSign is growing faster, adding 107 stars in the last 30 days (+1.5%) against adding 2 stars for Wraft (+1.2%). OpenSign is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with OpenSign last updated 14 hours ago and Wraft 13 days ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: OpenSign uses Typescript, JSX while Wraft leverages Rust, Lua, Elixir.
Both projects started around the same time, with OpenSign beginning 3 years ago and Wraft 2 years ago.
Both projects use the AGPL-3.0 license, providing identical terms for usage and distribution.
Both tools serve similar use cases in E-Signature Platforms. However, they also have distinct specializations: Wraft extends into Document Management Systems.
Both OpenSign and Wraft offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.