At a glance — how these 3 alternatives compare
Our read on each project's adoption, maintenance activity and commercial-use risk, derived from GitHub signals and SPDX license terms rather than star count alone. Sorted by stars. How we score.
| Project | Adoption | Maintenance | Commercial use |
|---|---|---|---|
| ★ 41,047 · JavaScript AGPL-3.0 | Flagship | Active | High risk Even a hosted/modified deployment can trigger source release |
| ★ 41,035 · TypeScript Apache-2.0 | Flagship | Active | Low risk Embed in a proprietary product with no copyleft obligation |
| ★ 28,327 · TypeScript | Mainstream | Active | High risk Distributing a derived work obliges releasing its source. Split licence — this rates the core component; read the † text for the separately licensed parts |
† Licenses marked † were read from the repository's LICENSE file on 2026-09-05 (linked, pinned to the commit we read) because the GitHub API returned no SPDX id for them. Unmarked licenses are the GitHub API's SPDX classification.
The alternatives
ToolJet
Open-source foundation of ToolJet AI - the enterprise app generation platform for internal tools, dashboards, business applications, workflows and AI agents. Build visually, from a prompt, or from Claude Code, Codex and Cursor over MCP 🚀
ToolJet/ToolJet Updated 2026-10-08 appsmith
Platform to build admin panels, internal tools, and dashboards. Integrates with 25+ databases and any API.
appsmithorg/appsmith Updated 2026-10-08 AI agents, automations and apps that run your operations. Model agnostic.
Budibase/budibase Updated 2026-10-08 Editor's take
Yusuke Morinaga · last revisited · star counts quoted in the text (≈) are as of that date; the cards above are refreshed daily
Leaving Bubble isn't a migration — there's no code export, so you're rebuilding from a spec you have to reverse-engineer first.
The word “migration” is misleading for Bubble, and I think that mislabeling is what burns people. Bubble has no code export. Your application is not portable artifacts you can convert — it’s logic locked inside Bubble’s visual editor. So the honest framing is: you are not migrating, you are rebuilding from scratch on a new platform, using your old app as the spec. Anyone who tells you a tool “converts Bubble apps” is selling something.
That reframing changes how I’d evaluate the OSS candidates here, because the real question becomes which target makes the rebuild cheapest — and whether the target can even do what your Bubble app does at all.
The candidates split on that second point. Appsmith (≈40.8k★, TypeScript, Apache-2.0) and ToolJet (≈40.8k★, JavaScript, AGPL-3.0) are both strong internal-tool builders: connect a database or API, drag widgets onto a canvas, wire up queries. Budibase (≈28.3k★) covers the same forms, CRUD, and dashboard territory with a self-host story. All three are genuinely good. But notice the category they all live in: internal tools. That is the gap nobody mentions until it’s too late. Bubble’s actual selling point is building externally-facing SaaS products with arbitrary business logic and a responsive design engine. These OSS builders are oriented toward admin panels and data-management UIs behind a login. If your Bubble app is a customer-facing product, none of these is a like-for-like replacement, and you should be budgeting for real frontend code instead.
Two licensing notes worth checking before you commit: Appsmith’s Apache-2.0 is the cleanest if you might ever embed or resell. ToolJet and Budibase carry copyleft / non-standard terms — fine for internal use, worth a read if your plans are commercial.
What I’d do before touching any of them: export the Bubble database via the built-in CSV/API export while you still can, then screenshot every workflow page into a functional spec. The workflows are the asset you’re actually losing, and they vanish the day you stop paying. Capture them first, choose the platform second.
Comparison notes
AppSmith and ToolJet are the two open-source visual builders most people reach for when replacing Bubble, with Budibase covering similar ground — self-hosted forms, CRUD apps, and dashboards. The important distinction is what they're built to make. These tools point squarely at internal tools and data-management UIs, whereas Bubble is designed to ship externally-facing SaaS products with genuinely complex business logic. You also won't find an open-source match for Bubble's responsive design engine or the breadth of its plugin marketplace. Worth weighing on the other side of the ledger: Bubble's lock-in is severe, since apps can't be exported as standard code — a real argument for the more portable open-source route.
Migration tips
- Bubble has no code export — migration requires rebuilding in the target platform, not converting
- Export your Bubble database data via the built-in CSV or API export before migration
- Document your Bubble workflows as a functional specification before rebuilding — screenshot or PDF each workflow page
- Identify Bubble plugins you depend on and find equivalent integrations or libraries in your target platform
- Plan for a parallel run period where both Bubble and the new application serve users while you validate feature parity
Which alternative should you pick?
Replacing Bubble isn't a single call — it's a trade between license terms, team size, and how much early-stage roughness you can absorb. The 3 projects above split along those lines:
- You want the project with the most GitHub stars in this list → ToolJet. 41,047★ — but appsmith is close behind at 41,035★, so treat the two as equals on this signal and decide on license and fit instead.
- You ship commercial software and need to ship modified code without releasing source → appsmith. Apache-2.0 licensed — modify and embed without copyleft obligations.
License & commercial-use notes
When replacing Bubble, the license usually decides more than the feature list — whether you can modify it, ship it inside a product, or host it as a service. The 3 projects here fall into:
- Permissive (appsmith) — MIT / Apache / BSD / ISC — modify and embed inside a commercial product with no copyleft obligation. The safest bucket for shipping in a proprietary codebase.
- Strong copyleft (budibase) — GPL / EPL — distributing a derived work obliges you to release its source under the same terms. Fine for internal use; plan carefully before proprietary distribution.
- Network copyleft (ToolJet) — AGPL / SSPL — the copyleft trigger extends to offering the software over a network, so a hosted deployment of a modified version can oblige you to publish your changes. Read the exact terms before building a paid hosted product on these.
Split licences: budibase (GPL-3.0 (overall) + Business Source License (packages/pro) + MPL-2.0 (app-shipped packages)). This project is grouped above by the core licence; the separately licensed directories (enterprise or EE parts) are not covered by that bucket — check which files you actually ship.
License fields come from the GitHub API's SPDX classification and can lag a relicense. Where the API returned no SPDX id, the license marked † was read from the repository's LICENSE file on 2026-09-05; the † links to the exact file and commit we read. The repository linked on each card is authoritative — confirm its LICENSE file before any license-sensitive deployment.
Maintenance health of these 3 projects
Of the 3 projects listed, 3 shipped at least one commit in the last 12 months. See how we rank for the full criteria and our self-hosting cost reality check, which apply across every comparison on this site.
Frequently asked questions
How do these 3 alternatives compare on maintenance health?
3 of 3 have shipped a commit in the last 12 months. At least one project here has 5,000+ GitHub stars. Always check the last-pushed date in the cards above and read the latest closed issues — those two signals are the fastest public check we know of.
How this page was compiled
- Repository facts (stars, license, language, last push) come straight from the GitHub public API and are linked on each card as the primary source. Where the API returned no SPDX id, the licence marked † was read from the repository's
LICENSEfile (linked, pinned to the commit we read, with the date checked). - Editorial analysis (the intro, comparison notes and migration tips) is Claude-drafted from Bubble's use case and the alternatives' repository metadata — in Claude Code sessions or scheduled routines run under the operator's account. Samples are spot-checked against the upstream repositories; entries are not individually reviewed unless they carry a signature. See what Claude drafts and what the operator writes.
- Editor's take is signed by Yusuke Morinaga. It was drafted in a Claude Code session the operator ran, then read and confirmed by Yusuke Morinaga before publication, and carries the date it was last revised. It is written from each project's README, LICENSE, release history and issue tracker — not from running the project in production; where that distinction matters, the take says so.
- Maintenance signal: 3 of 3 projects shipped a commit in the last 12 months as of the latest rebuild (most recent activity: ).
- Last editorial review: by Yusuke Morinaga.
- Spotted an error? Email [email protected] with the page URL (subject prefix
[correction]) — we ship corrections within 14 days.