Learn how TimeTracker and Wakapi differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these time tracking tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
1 day agoRepository age
1 yearVersion
v5.18.3License
GPL-3.0Self-hosted
YesRepository
drytrix/timetracker
Last 30 days
Last commit
2 days agoRepository age
7 yearsVersion
2.18.2License
MITSelf-hosted
YesRepository
muety/wakapi
Wakapi appears to have several advantages over TimeTracker, particularly in popularity, maturity and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Wakapi significantly outpaces TimeTracker in community adoption with 4,461 stars compared to 634 stars on GitHub. This 7.0x difference suggests Wakapi has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Wakapi has 309 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
TimeTracker is growing faster, adding 6 stars in the last 30 days (+1%) against adding 25 stars for Wakapi (+0.6%). TimeTracker is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with TimeTracker last updated 1 day ago and Wakapi 2 days ago.
Wakapi has been in development longer, starting 7 years ago, compared to TimeTracker which began 1 year ago. This 6.3-year head start suggests Wakapi may have more mature features and established processes.
Wakapi uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than TimeTracker's GPL-3.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Time Tracking.
Both TimeTracker and Wakapi offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.