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 commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

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

Both OpenSign and Wraft 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.
OpenSign significantly outpaces Wraft in community adoption with 6,936 stars compared to 164 stars on GitHub. This 42.3x difference suggests OpenSign has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, OpenSign has 819 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Wraft is growing faster, adding 7 stars in the last 30 days (+4.5%) against adding 188 stars for OpenSign (+2.8%). Wraft is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
OpenSign shows more recent development activity with its last commit 10 days ago, while Wraft was last updated 2 months ago. This suggests OpenSign is being more actively maintained.
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.