arbtt vs Titra
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted time tracking options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
arbtt
Automatic rule-based time tracker for desktops
VS
Titra
Fast time tracking for freelancers and small teams
| Feature | arbtt | Titra |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Time Tracking | Time Tracking |
| License | GPL-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | Haskell | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | binary, source | docker, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 354 | ★ 496 |
| First released | 2009 | 2019 |
| Replaces | RescueTime, ManicTime | Toggl, Harvest, Clockify |
Why pick each one
Choose arbtt if…
- Released under the GPL-2.0 license
- Written in Haskell
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Choose Titra if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Written in JavaScript
Frequently asked questions
Is arbtt or Titra better?
Titra is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider arbtt if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are arbtt and Titra free and open-source?
Yes. arbtt is licensed under GPL-2.0 and Titra under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run arbtt and Titra with Docker?
arbtt: check the project docs for container support. Titra: yes.