Slash vs Shlink Web Client
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted url shorteners options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Slash
Open-source, self-hosted bookmarks and link shortener
VS
Shlink Web Client
Web dashboard for managing Shlink instances
| Feature | Slash | Shlink Web Client |
|---|---|---|
| Category | URL Shorteners | URL Shorteners |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | TypeScript | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 3,169 | ★ 391 |
| First released | 2023 | 2018 |
| Replaces | Bitly, go links | Bitly |
Why pick each one
Choose Slash if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (3.2k GitHub stars)
Choose Shlink Web Client if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Written in TypeScript
Frequently asked questions
Is Slash or Shlink Web Client better?
Neither is universally better. Slash has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Slash and Shlink Web Client free and open-source?
Yes. Slash is licensed under MIT and Shlink Web Client under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Slash and Shlink Web Client with Docker?
Slash: yes. Shlink Web Client: yes.