Chowdown vs OpenEats
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted recipe managers options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Chowdown
Static-site recipe collection built on Jekyll
VS
OpenEats
Self-hosted recipe management web application
| Feature | Chowdown | OpenEats |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Recipe Managers | Recipe Managers |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | HTML | Dockerfile |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, source | docker, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 665 | ★ 698 |
| First released | 2014 | 2017 |
| Replaces | Paprika, BigOven | Paprika, Yummly |
Why pick each one
Frequently asked questions
Is Chowdown or OpenEats better?
Neither is universally better. OpenEats has the larger community, while Chowdown is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Chowdown and OpenEats free and open-source?
Yes. Chowdown is licensed under MIT and OpenEats under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Chowdown and OpenEats with Docker?
Chowdown: check the project docs for container support. OpenEats: yes.