Koha vs RERO ILS
Both are self-hosted document management - integrated library systems (ils) projects. This page compares how well each one is actually maintained — the part you cannot see from a feature list.
| Koha | RERO ILS | |
|---|---|---|
| Health score | 64/100 | 53/100 |
| Commits (11 mo) | 3385 | 160 |
| Commits (last 3 mo) | 727 | 82 |
| Stars | 590 | 87 |
| Latest release | none tagged | 14 Jul 2026 |
| Licence | GPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Built with | Perl | Python, Docker |
| Typical RAM | 1 GB | 1 GB |
Koha
Enterprise-class ILS with modules for acquisitions, circulation, cataloging, label printing, offline circulation for when Internet access is not available, and much more.
Maintained, but at a slower pace than the leaders in its category.
Commit activity more than 95% of tracked projects; popularity more than 26%. How this is calculated.
Commits, last 11 months
RERO ILS
Large-scale ILS that can be run as a service with consortial features, intended primarily for library networks. Includes most standard modules (circulation, acquisitions, cataloging,...) and a web-based public and professional interface.
Maintained, but at a slower pace than the leaders in its category.
Commit activity more than 39% of tracked projects; popularity more than 7%. How this is calculated.
Commits, last 11 months
How to read this
Everything above is measured, not opinion: commit counts and release dates come from the public repositories, and the health score ranks each project against all 1352 projects we track. Read the full method.
What this comparison deliberately does not do is tell you which has the better feature set. Maintenance health tells you which project will still be receiving security fixes in two years. Decide that first, then compare features on the projects that survive the filter.
See every option in this category: self-hosted document management - integrated library systems (ils).