head to head · open source

gofr vs Pulse

gofr has 20,909 GitHub stars, 1,760 forks, 132 open issues and last shipped 2 days ago. Pulse has 7,219 stars, 376 forks, 46 open issues and last shipped 1 months ago. gofr leads on adoption by 190% (20,909 vs 7,219 stars). gofr is written in Go under Apache-2.0; Pulse is written in Swift under MIT. gofr has attracted 8% as many forks as stars, Pulse 5%. gofr was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 1 topic tag (logging), 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 Pulse ★ 7.2K category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 20902 open source comparisons

Side by side

gofr Pulse
GitHub stars ★ 21K ★ 7.2K
License Apache-2.0 MIT
Written in Go Swift
Last push 2026-09-18 2026-08-15
Forks ⑂ 1.8K ⑂ 376
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 Pulse if

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

full Pulse 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 Pulse

Pulse is an MIT licensed Swift logging framework for Apple platforms that records logs and URLSession network requests inside iOS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS, and visionOS apps, then displays them through SwiftUI views so developers and QA teams can inspect and share them directly from the device.

read the full Pulse overview →

More in Infrastructure & Operations

kubernetes ★ 128K Immich ★ 115K frp ★ 110K Uptime Kuma ★ 92K worldmonitor ★ 87K mall ★ 85K

Related comparisons

n8n vs huginn uptime-kuma vs worldmonitor uptime-kuma vs netdata uptime-kuma vs grafana worldmonitor vs netdata worldmonitor vs grafana uptime-kuma vs prometheus netdata vs grafana n8n vs kestra langchain vs haystack kubernetes vs rancher ansible vs compose ansible vs conductor ansible vs xxl-job ansible vs gitleaks ansible vs kestra kubernetes vs docker kubernetes vs kong kubernetes vs portainer kubernetes vs trivy kubernetes vs opentofu kubernetes vs jenkins kubernetes vs pulumi kubernetes vs floci

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 Pulse more popular?

gofr has 20,909 GitHub stars and Pulse has 7,219. gofr has the larger community by that measure.

Are gofr and Pulse free?

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

What is the difference between gofr and Pulse?

gofr is written in Go and Pulse in Swift. 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 Pulse?

Choose gofr if you want the larger community (20,909 stars) or its Apache-2.0 licence terms. Choose Pulse if its feature set, stack or MIT licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.