Chatwoot vs erxes
| Tagline | Open-source omnichannel live-chat and support desk, an Intercom/Zendesk alternative | Open-source experience operating system unifying sales, marketing and support |
| Category | Helpdesk & Support | CRM & Sales |
| Replaces | Intercom, Zendesk, Freshdesk | HubSpot, Salesforce, Intercom |
| GitHub stars | 37k | 4.1k |
| Language | Ruby | TypeScript |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 5/5 Advanced |
| Deploy options | One-Click Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | yesterday | yesterday |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
Chatwoot
- Newer/advanced features (AI agents, advanced reporting) are gated behind paid Enterprise/cloud tiers
- Reporting and analytics are less deep than Zendesk Explore
- No native ITSM/ticketing workflow engine as mature as Zendesk's
- Telephony/voice support is weaker than the proprietary incumbents
erxes
- Microservice/plugin architecture makes self-hosting complex and resource-heavy
- Broad scope means individual modules are less deep than specialized tools
- Documentation can lag the fast-moving codebase
- Smaller integration ecosystem than HubSpot
Bottom line
Choose Chatwoot if you want the lower-effort setup; choose Chatwoot for the larger community and ecosystem. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.