head to head · open source

quasar vs GhostText

quasar has 27,211 GitHub stars, 3,672 forks, 74 open issues and last shipped 3 days ago. GhostText has 3,641 stars, 133 forks, 40 open issues and last shipped 4 months ago. quasar leads on adoption by 647% (27,211 vs 3,641 stars). quasar is written in JavaScript under MIT; GhostText is written in JavaScript under MIT. quasar has attracted 13% as many forks as stars, GhostText 4%. quasar was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 1 topic tag (browser-extension), 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.

quasar ★ 27K GhostText ★ 3.6K category Productivity & Utilities

← all 20902 open source comparisons

Side by side

quasar GhostText
GitHub stars ★ 27K ★ 3.6K
License MIT MIT
Written in JavaScript JavaScript
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-05-13
Forks ⑂ 3.7K ⑂ 133
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick quasar if

  • You weight community size — 27K stars and counting
  • You want the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches JavaScript
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full quasar profile →

pick GhostText if

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

full GhostText profile →

About quasar

Quasar Framework is an MIT licensed Vue.js framework that builds responsive single page apps, server side rendered and statically generated sites, progressive web apps, browser extensions, hybrid mobile apps, and Electron desktop apps from a single codebase.

read the full quasar overview →

About GhostText

GhostText is a JavaScript project that connects a browser text field to a local text editor. It lives in the browser extension and editor plugin ecosystem, with published versions for Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Sublime Text, Visual Studio Code, Emacs, Vim, Neovim, Helix, and another Ghost package listed in the README.

read the full GhostText overview →

More in Productivity & Utilities

n8n ★ 205K Excalidraw ★ 132K RustDesk ★ 124K LocalSend ★ 92K AppFlowy ★ 77K OBS Studio ★ 76K

Related comparisons

vscode vs monaco-editor browser-use vs chrome-devtools-mcp playwright vs chrome-devtools-mcp puppeteer vs chrome-devtools-mcp ublock vs ladybird playwright vs obscura ublock vs chrome-devtools-mcp ladybird vs chrome-devtools-mcp openclaw vs khoj open-webui vs open-notebook open-webui vs khoj appflowy vs affine appflowy vs memos appflowy vs plane appflowy vs joplin mem0 vs memos n8n vs langchain n8n vs browser-use firecrawl vs browser-use n8n vs langgraph n8n vs frigate n8n vs lightpanda n8n vs proxmoxve n8n vs activepieces

More Browsers & Extensions projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the Browsers & Extensions field.

quasar vs uBlock quasar vs Ladybird quasar vs chrome-devtools-mcp quasar vs monaco-editor quasar vs Zen Browser quasar vs servo quasar vs serenity quasar vs refined-github quasar vs slate quasar vs Avalonia quasar vs webtorrent quasar vs fingerprintjs

Frequently asked questions

Is quasar or GhostText more popular?

quasar has 27,211 GitHub stars and GhostText has 3,641. quasar has the larger community by that measure.

Are quasar and GhostText free?

Both are open source. quasar is licensed under MIT and GhostText under MIT. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between quasar and GhostText?

quasar is written in JavaScript and GhostText in JavaScript. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, quasar or GhostText?

Choose quasar if you want the larger community (27,211 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose GhostText if its feature set, stack or MIT licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.