Actual vs HyperSwitch
| Tagline | Local-first zero-sum budgeting app with optional cross-device sync | Open payment switch — route traffic across 50+ processors with one API |
| Category | Finance & Budgeting | Finance & Budgeting |
| Replaces | YNAB, Mint | QuickBooks, Mint |
| GitHub stars | 27k | 43k |
| Language | Nodejs | Docker |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 4/5 Involved |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Manual | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | today | today |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
Actual
- Bank sync coverage is narrower than YNAB's direct connections, especially outside the US/EU
- No mobile native app; the web app is mobile-responsive but not fully optimised for touch
- Investment tracking and net-worth projections are basic compared to Mint/Quicken
- Multi-currency support is limited and requires manual workarounds
HyperSwitch
- Focused on payment routing, not personal or business accounting/budgeting
- Self-hosted setup requires PostgreSQL, Redis, and Kafka; operational overhead is high
- PCI-DSS compliance responsibility shifts entirely to the operator
- No built-in invoicing, expense tracking, or financial reporting beyond payment analytics
Bottom line
Choose Actual if you want the lower-effort setup; choose HyperSwitch for the larger community and ecosystem. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
HyperSwitch
Open payment switch — route traffic across 50+ processors with one API