Fava vs Beancount
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted budgeting & finance options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Fava
Web interface for Beancount plain-text accounting
VS
Beancount
Double-entry bookkeeping in plain text with a query language
| Feature | Fava | Beancount |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Budgeting & Finance | Budgeting & Finance |
| License | MIT | GPL-2.0 |
| Language | Python | Python |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal, source | binary, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 2,542 | ★ 5,881 |
| First released | 2016 | 2008 |
| Replaces | QuickBooks, GnuCash | QuickBooks, Xero |
Why pick each one
Choose Beancount if…
- Released under the GPL-2.0 license
- Mature project with 5.9k GitHub stars
- Written in Python
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Fava or Beancount better?
Neither is universally better. Beancount has the larger community, while Fava is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Fava and Beancount free and open-source?
Yes. Fava is licensed under MIT and Beancount under GPL-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Fava and Beancount with Docker?
Fava: yes. Beancount: check the project docs for container support.