hash-calendar vs Kontact
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted apps from related categories — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
hash-calendar
Lightweight calendar app where the data lives in the URL hash
VS
Kontact
Integrated personal information manager for KDE
| Feature | hash-calendar | Kontact |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | Groupware |
| License | MIT | GPL-2.0 |
| Language | JavaScript | C++ |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal | binary, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 69 | ★ 200 |
| First released | 2026 | 2004 |
| Replaces | Google Agenda, Microsoft Outlook | Microsoft Outlook |
Why pick each one
Choose hash-calendar if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Written in JavaScript
- Lightweight — runs in 512 MB RAM
Choose Kontact if…
- Released under the GPL-2.0 license
- Written in C++
- Lightweight — runs in 512 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is hash-calendar or Kontact better?
Neither is universally better. Kontact has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are hash-calendar and Kontact free and open-source?
Yes. hash-calendar is licensed under MIT and Kontact under GPL-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run hash-calendar and Kontact with Docker?
hash-calendar: check the project docs for container support. Kontact: check the project docs for container support.