Learn how RapidRAW and RAWmakase differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these photo editing software is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
18 hours agoRepository age
1 yearVersion
v1.6.7License
AGPL-3.0Repository
cybertimon/rapidraw
Last 30 days
Last commit
6 hours agoRepository age
30 daysVersion
v0.4.5License
MITRepository
pch/rawmakase
Both RapidRAW and RAWmakase 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.
RapidRAW significantly outpaces RAWmakase in community adoption with 10,706 stars compared to 1,478 stars on GitHub. This 7.2x difference suggests RapidRAW has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, RapidRAW has 630 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
RAWmakase is growing faster, adding 1,237 stars in the last 30 days (+513%) against adding 508 stars for RapidRAW (+5%). RAWmakase is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with RapidRAW last updated 18 hours ago and RAWmakase 6 hours ago.
RapidRAW has been in development longer, starting 1 year ago, compared to RAWmakase which began 30 days ago. This 1.3-year head start suggests RapidRAW may have more mature features and established processes.
RAWmakase uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than RapidRAW's AGPL-3.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Photo Editors.