head to head · open source

gofr vs kubeshark

gofr has 20,916 GitHub stars, 1,759 forks, 132 open issues and last shipped yesterday. kubeshark has 12,082 stars, 549 forks, 149 open issues and last shipped 9 days ago. gofr leads on adoption by 73% (20,916 vs 12,082 stars). gofr is written in Go under Apache-2.0; kubeshark is written in Go under Apache-2.0. gofr has attracted 8% as many forks as stars, kubeshark 5%. gofr was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 2 topic tags (golang, grpc), so they are genuine substitutes rather than adjacent tools.

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 kubeshark ★ 12K category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

gofr kubeshark
GitHub stars ★ 21K ★ 12K
License Apache-2.0 Apache-2.0
Written in Go Go
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-09-09
Forks ⑂ 1.8K ⑂ 549
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 kubeshark if

  • You want the kubeshark feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the Apache-2.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Go
  • You evaluated both and kubeshark fits your workflow better

full kubeshark 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 kubeshark

Kubeshark is an Apache 2.0, eBPF powered network observability tool for Kubernetes that indexes cluster wide L4/L7 traffic with full Kubernetes context and makes that traffic queryable by AI agents through the Model Context Protocol and by humans through a real time dashboard.

read the full kubeshark 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 kubeshark more popular?

gofr has 20,916 GitHub stars and kubeshark has 12,082. gofr has the larger community by that measure.

Are gofr and kubeshark free?

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

What is the difference between gofr and kubeshark?

gofr is written in Go and kubeshark in Go. 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 kubeshark?

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