motion.tools (Antragsgrün) vs osem

Both are self-hosted conference management projects. This page compares how well each one is actually maintained — the part you cannot see from a feature list.

motion.tools (Antragsgrün) scores 70 against osem's 32, putting it clearly ahead on the strength of a higher commit volume and more recent releases. That measures project health, not feature fit — osem may still be the right choice if it does what you need.

	motion.tools (Antragsgrün)	osem
Health score	70/100	32/100
Commits (11 mo)	656	178
Commits (last 3 mo)	326	41
Stars	146	927
Latest release	23 Aug 2026	24 May 2016
Licence	AGPL-3.0	MIT
Built with	PHP, Docker	Ruby, Docker
Typical RAM	1 GB	1 GB

motion.tools (Antragsgrün)

Manage motions and amendments for (political) conventions.

70/100

Healthy

Actively maintained with regular releases.

Maintenance 28/40

Releases 25/25

Community 2/20

Momentum 15/15

Commit activity more than 71% of tracked projects; popularity more than 9%. How this is calculated.

Commits, last 11 months

osem

Event management tailored to free Software conferences.

32/100

At risk

Little to no recent activity. Treat as unmaintained until proven otherwise.

Maintenance 16/40

Releases 1/25

Community 7/20

Momentum 8/15

Commit activity more than 41% of tracked projects; popularity more than 33%. 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 conference management.