Learn how Organic Maps and OSMAnd differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these maps & navigation is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
Repository

Both Organic Maps and OSMAnd 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.
Organic Maps leads in popularity with 15,563 stars vs 6,056 stars for OSMAnd. The 157% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, Organic Maps has 1,622 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Organic Maps and OSMAnd are moving at much the same rate, adding 265 stars and adding 103 stars respectively over the last 30 days (+1.7% vs +1.7%). Neither is pulling away from the other on momentum alone.
Both projects show recent activity, with Organic Maps last updated 6 hours ago and OSMAnd 7 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with CSS, Bash, Python, Java. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Organic Maps uses C, Objective-C, PHP, Swift, Ruby, C++, MATLAB, Lua, GLSL while OSMAnd leverages Kotlin.
OSMAnd has been in development longer, starting 16 years ago, compared to Organic Maps which began 6 years ago. This 10.1-year head start suggests OSMAnd may have more mature features and established processes.
Organic Maps is licensed under Apache-2.0, while OSMAnd's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Maps & Navigation.