Cal.com vs Fider
| Tagline | Scheduling infrastructure for everyone, the open-source Calendly alternative | Open platform to collect, vote on, and prioritise user feedback |
| Category | Scheduling & Booking | Scheduling & Booking |
| Replaces | Calendly, Acuity Scheduling | Calendly, Acuity Scheduling |
| GitHub stars | 46k | 4.4k |
| Language | TypeScript | Docker |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 3/5 Moderate |
| Deploy options | One-Click Docker Docker Compose Manual | Docker Docker Compose Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 2 days ago | 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.
Cal.com
- Some enterprise features (e.g. SAML SSO, advanced admin/insights, certain platform features) are gated behind a commercial/EE license even when self-hosting.
- Self-hosting requires PostgreSQL plus configuring numerous environment variables and OAuth credentials for calendar integrations.
- The core code is AGPL-3.0, which imposes copyleft obligations on modified network deployments.
- Upgrades between major versions occasionally require manual database migration work.
Fider
- categorySlug is 'scheduling' but Fider is a feedback/voting tool; replaces options are limited to scheduling slugs in the ref
- No roadmap visualisation or timeline planning built in
- Integrations with Jira, Linear, or Slack require custom webhooks
- No in-app surveys or NPS measurement
Bottom line
Both are a similar lift to self-host; choose Cal.com for the larger community and ecosystem. Fider has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
Cal.com
Scheduling infrastructure for everyone, the open-source Calendly alternative