Octobox vs Plane
| Tagline | Take back control of your GitHub notifications with a self-hosted inbox | Open-source issue tracking, sprints, and roadmaps - a Jira and Linear alternative |
| Category | Project Management & Kanban | Project Management & Kanban |
| Replaces | Jira, Linear, Asana | Jira, Linear, Asana |
| GitHub stars | 4.5k | 52k |
| Language | Ruby | TypeScript |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 3/5 Moderate |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Manual | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes 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.
Octobox
- Scoped exclusively to GitHub notifications; no GitLab or Bitbucket support
- Not a full project management tool — no task creation, boards, or planning views
- Requires a GitHub OAuth app setup; adding team members requires individual GitHub auth
- Development activity has slowed; some GitHub API changes may not be promptly reflected
Plane
- Some advanced features (e.g. certain enterprise workflows, intake, advanced analytics) are gated behind the paid Pro/Enterprise tiers
- Self-hosted community edition lags behind the cloud version on newer features
- Automation rules are far less mature than Jira's
- Mobile apps are less polished than Linear's
Bottom line
Both are a similar lift to self-host; choose Plane for the larger community and ecosystem. Plane has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
Plane
Open-source issue tracking, sprints, and roadmaps - a Jira and Linear alternative