head to head · open source

gofr vs codeburn

gofr has 20,916 GitHub stars, 1,759 forks, 132 open issues and last shipped yesterday. codeburn has 11,063 stars, 839 forks, 39 open issues and last shipped yesterday. gofr leads on adoption by 89% (20,916 vs 11,063 stars). gofr is written in Go under Apache-2.0; codeburn is written in TypeScript under MIT. gofr has attracted 8% as many forks as stars, codeburn 8%. codeburn was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee.

Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.

gofr ★ 21K codeburn ★ 11K category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

gofr codeburn
GitHub stars ★ 21K ★ 11K
License Apache-2.0 MIT
Written in Go TypeScript
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-09-17
Forks ⑂ 1.8K ⑂ 839
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick gofr if

  • You weight community size — 21K stars and counting
  • You want the Apache-2.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Go
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full gofr profile →

pick codeburn if

  • You want the codeburn feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches TypeScript
  • You evaluated both and codeburn fits your workflow better

full codeburn profile →

About gofr

GoFr is an opinionated Go framework for building microservices, aimed at Go developers and platform teams who want HTTP, gRPC, data access and observability built in rather than assembled from separate libraries.

read the full gofr overview →

About codeburn

CodeBurn is a free, open source, local first tool that tracks AI coding token usage and cost across 41 tools and agents, including Claude Code, Cursor, Codex, Gemini, and Grok. It is written in TypeScript, licensed under MIT, and lives in the developer tools and observability ecosystem as a command line utility with optional desktop surfaces. Every surface reads the session files that the supported tools already write to disk, so CodeBurn acts as one source of truth rather than a separate collection layer.

read the full codeburn overview →

More in Infrastructure & Operations

Immich ★ 114K Uptime Kuma ★ 91K worldmonitor ★ 87K mall ★ 85K NetData ★ 81K Elasticsearch ★ 78K

Related comparisons

uptime-kuma vs worldmonitor uptime-kuma vs netdata uptime-kuma vs grafana worldmonitor vs netdata worldmonitor vs grafana netdata vs grafana uptime-kuma vs huginn worldmonitor vs huginn immich vs paperless-ngx immich vs ceph immich vs filestash immich vs garage immich vs storj immich vs alarik immich vs spinifex paperless-ngx vs ceph mall vs prometheus mall vs nocodb mall vs etcd mall vs dbeaver mall vs orm prometheus vs nocodb mall vs milvus mall vs tidb

More Monitoring & Observability projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the Monitoring & Observability field.

gofr vs Uptime Kuma gofr vs worldmonitor gofr vs NetData gofr vs Grafana gofr vs huginn gofr vs Sentry gofr vs SigNoz gofr vs Grafana Loki gofr vs beszel gofr vs cilium gofr vs Apache SkyWalking gofr vs jaeger

Frequently asked questions

Is gofr or codeburn more popular?

gofr has 20,916 GitHub stars and codeburn has 11,063. gofr has the larger community by that measure.

Are gofr and codeburn free?

Both are open source. gofr is licensed under Apache-2.0 and codeburn under MIT. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between gofr and codeburn?

gofr is written in Go and codeburn in TypeScript. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, gofr or codeburn?

Choose gofr if you want the larger community (20,916 stars) or its Apache-2.0 licence terms. Choose codeburn if its feature set, stack or MIT licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.