Request Tracker vs Zammad
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?
Request Tracker
Enterprise-grade ticketing system from Best Practical
VS
Zammad
Web-based helpdesk and customer support system
| Feature | Request Tracker | Zammad |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Helpdesk & Ticketing | Chat & Communication |
| License | GPL-2.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | Perl | Ruby |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 1,024 MB | 4,096 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, source | docker, bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 1,141 | ★ 5,834 |
| First released | 1996 | 2016 |
| Replaces | Zendesk, Jira Service Management | Zendesk, Freshdesk |
Why pick each one
Choose Request Tracker if…
- Released under the GPL-2.0 license
- Active community (1.1k GitHub stars)
- Written in Perl
Frequently asked questions
Is Request Tracker or Zammad better?
Zammad is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler medium setup. Consider Request Tracker if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Request Tracker and Zammad free and open-source?
Yes. Request Tracker is licensed under GPL-2.0 and Zammad under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Request Tracker and Zammad with Docker?
Request Tracker: check the project docs for container support. Zammad: yes.