# OpenScribe vs Zammad

> Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.

| | OpenScribe | Zammad |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 44/100 | 70/100 ✓ |
| Rank in category | #4 of 5 in Healthcare | #1 of 9 in Helpdesk |
| GitHub stars | 223 | 6 052 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | +0 | +100 ✓ |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 2 ✓ | 0 |
| Latest release | v0.1.1 · 12 Mar 2026 | — |
| Setup | Moderate ✓ | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | No | Yes ✓ |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Ruby |

## Which one should you pick?

Zammad scores 70/100 against 44/100 for OpenScribe, so it is the safer default.

OpenScribe ships more often: 2 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for Zammad.

If you want the quickest setup, OpenScribe is easier to run; Zammad needs more configuration.

Zammad is growing faster right now (+100 stars in 30 days).

## Details

- [OpenScribe](https://selfhost.directory/project/openscribe) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/openscribe.md)
- [Zammad](https://selfhost.directory/project/zammad) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/zammad.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/openscribe-vs-zammad