How we select alternatives
OSS Alternatives launched with a small number of thoroughly covered comparisons rather than a large, shallow directory. Here is exactly how we decide what qualifies and how it's ranked.
What we consider open source
A tool must ship its full source code under an OSI-approved license (MIT, Apache-2.0, GPL, AGPL, BSD, etc.). We exclude "source-available" or "fair-code" licenses that restrict commercial self-hosting, multi-tenant use, or competing products (e.g. BSL, Elastic License, Commons Clause) — even when a vendor markets them as open source. When a project has an open-core model, we identify exactly which parts are open source and which are gated behind a paid tier.
How we verify licenses
We check the LICENSE file in the project's repository directly rather than relying on the vendor's marketing site, since positioning and actual licensing terms frequently diverge. Where a project splits an open Community Edition from a paid Enterprise Edition, we label the license as "(Community Edition)" and note what enterprise-only features are withheld.
Self-hosted or not
We confirm a tool can be deployed on infrastructure you control — via Docker, a binary, or documented manual setup — not just used as a hosted SaaS with an optional "open source" badge. Tools that are open source but only meaningfully usable as a hosted service are marked accordingly rather than listed as self-hosted.
GitHub activity
We look at star count, commit recency, open issue backlog, and contributor count as a proxy for whether a project is actively maintained versus abandoned. Star counts shown on this site are a point-in-time snapshot from our last sync, not a live count.
Selection criteria
Beyond license and self-hosting, we weigh feature parity with the proprietary tool being replaced, project maturity (is it production-ready or an early prototype?), and how clearly any paid tiers or hosted pricing are disclosed. We do not accept payment or free products in exchange for inclusion or ranking.
How rankings work
Alternatives are ordered by GitHub stars as a simple, transparent default — but star count alone doesn't decide our editorial "which one should you choose" recommendations on each comparison page. A smaller, more focused project can be the better pick for a specific use case even when it has fewer stars than the top-ranked option.
Corrections
If a license, pricing detail, or self-hosting claim on this site is wrong or out of date, we want to know. Star counts and repository details are refreshed periodically, not in real time, so there will occasionally be a lag between a project's current state and what's shown here.