head to head · open source

Harness vs style-dictionary

Harness has 38,398 GitHub stars, 3,402 forks, 106 open issues and last shipped 2 days ago. style-dictionary has 4,819 stars, 628 forks, 242 open issues and last shipped 2 days ago. Harness leads on adoption by 697% (38,398 vs 4,819 stars). Harness is written in Go under Apache-2.0; style-dictionary is written in JavaScript under Apache-2.0. Harness has attracted 9% as many forks as stars, style-dictionary 13%. Harness 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.

Harness ★ 38K style-dictionary ★ 4.8K category Developer Tools

← all 20902 open source comparisons

Side by side

Harness style-dictionary
GitHub stars ★ 38K ★ 4.8K
License Apache-2.0 Apache-2.0
Written in Go JavaScript
Last push 2026-09-18 2026-09-18
Forks ⑂ 3.4K ⑂ 628
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick Harness if

  • You weight community size — 38K 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 Harness profile →

pick style-dictionary if

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

full style-dictionary profile →

About Harness

Harness Open Source is an Apache 2.0, Go based developer platform that combines Git source control management, CI/CD pipelines, Gitspaces hosted development environments and artifact registries into one self hostable system for engineering teams that want end to end software delivery without stitching four separate products together.

read the full Harness overview →

About style-dictionary

Style Dictionary is a JavaScript build system that turns design tokens into cross platform style definitions for iOS, Android, CSS, JavaScript, HTML, and Sketch, aimed at design system teams and developers who need one source of truth for styles instead of hand maintained files per platform.

read the full style-dictionary overview →

More in Developer Tools

ECC ★ 263K react ★ 251K OpenCode ★ 209K vscode ★ 193K Langflow ★ 155K Supabase ★ 110K

Related comparisons

openclaw vs harness react vs vite supabase vs appwrite kubernetes vs dokku vite vs webpack vite vs appwrite vite vs parcel webpack vs appwrite openclaw vs langflow ecc vs react ecc vs langflow react vs langflow ecc vs supabase react vs supabase n8n vs langflow ecc vs puppeteer openclaw vs openhands openclaw vs paperclip hermes-agent vs pi hermes-agent vs openhands hermes-agent vs paperclip opencode vs pi opencode vs openhands opencode vs paperclip

More Build & Deployment projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the Build & Deployment field.

Harness vs vite Harness vs webpack Harness vs Appwrite Harness vs parcel Harness vs esbuild Harness vs Dokku Harness vs turborepo Harness vs nx Harness vs NocoBase Harness vs gradle Harness vs rspack Harness vs devbox

Frequently asked questions

Is Harness or style-dictionary more popular?

Harness has 38,398 GitHub stars and style-dictionary has 4,819. Harness has the larger community by that measure.

Are Harness and style-dictionary free?

Both are open source. Harness is licensed under Apache-2.0 and style-dictionary under Apache-2.0. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between Harness and style-dictionary?

Harness is written in Go and style-dictionary 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, Harness or style-dictionary?

Choose Harness if you want the larger community (38,398 stars) or its Apache-2.0 licence terms. Choose style-dictionary if its feature set, stack or Apache-2.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.