Shlink Web Client vs Reduced.to

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?
FeatureShlink Web ClientReduced.to
CategoryURL ShortenersURL Shorteners
LicenseMITMIT
LanguageTypeScriptTypeScript
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM128 MB1,024 MB
Deploymentdockerdocker
GitHub stars★ 391★ 705
First released20182022
ReplacesBitlyBitly, Rebrandly

Why pick each one

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
Shlink Web Client details

Choose Reduced.to if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Written in TypeScript
Reduced.to details

Frequently asked questions

Is Shlink Web Client or Reduced.to better?

Neither is universally better. Reduced.to has the larger community, while Shlink Web Client is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.

Are Shlink Web Client and Reduced.to free and open-source?

Yes. Shlink Web Client is licensed under MIT and Reduced.to under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Shlink Web Client and Reduced.to with Docker?

Shlink Web Client: yes. Reduced.to: yes.

Related comparisons