Introduction
Many teams begin searching for project management software with a simple goal and end up debating open-source vs. self-hosted options instead. The discussion often conflates licensing, hosting, and security into a single decision, which creates confusion. Open-source project management software focuses on transparency and extensibility. Self-hosted project management software focuses on deployment and ownership. These choices affect how teams operate, scale, and maintain their tools over time. This article clarifies the difference, explains how open-core project management software fits in, and outlines how teams evaluate these models based on control and responsibility.
Why open-source and self-hosted are often confused
Teams evaluating project management platforms often see open-source and self-hosted mentioned together. Product pages, documentation, and comparison guides frequently use these terms side by side, which makes them feel like part of the same decision. Over time, they turn into shorthand for control, security, and flexibility, even though they describe different things.
Open-source and self-hosted describe different questions
The confusion starts because open-source project management software and self-hosted project management software answer two separate questions.
- Open-source focuses on the software itself. It describes whether teams can access the source code, review how the product works, and extend it to fit their workflows. This model speaks to transparency, extensibility, and the evolution of software over time.
- Self-hosted focuses on where the software runs. It describes whether the tool is deployed on infrastructure owned or managed by the team, and who is responsible for uptime, updates, and data storage. This model speaks to deployment, ownership, and operational responsibility.
Because both concepts influence control, they are often grouped together, even though they operate at different levels.
How tool comparisons blur the distinction
Many comparison articles and buying guides discuss open-source vs. self-hosted project management software as if they are opposing choices. In practice, a project management tool can be open-source and hosted by a vendor, or closed-source and self-hosted by a company. The overlap in language hides this reality and leads teams to assume these terms describe the same capability.
This framing makes it harder to understand what teams are actually choosing. One decision affects how flexible and transparent the software is. The other affects who owns deployment, maintenance, and infrastructure.
What “open-source” means in project management software
Open-source project management software refers to how the software is built and shared, not how it is deployed. It defines access to the source code and the rules under which teams can inspect, modify, and extend the product.
What open-source refers to in PM tools
In project management software, open source means the core codebase is available under an open-source license. Teams can review how the tool works, understand its data model, and adapt it to their workflows. This matters for teams that care about visibility, long-term flexibility, and control over how their tools evolve.
Open-source affects how software can be trusted, extended, and maintained over time. It shapes the relationship between the team and the product at a technical level.
What open-source enables in practice
Open-source project management software enables transparency by allowing teams to see how features are implemented and how data is handled. This visibility helps teams evaluate risk, security posture, and long-term viability.
It also enables extensibility. Teams can customize workflows, build internal integrations, or adapt the tool to fit specific delivery models. This flexibility becomes important as teams grow or operate in complex environments.
Community contribution is another outcome. Open-source tools often evolve through shared improvements, feedback, and real-world use cases. This creates software shaped by practical needs rather than isolated product decisions.
What open-source does and does not influence
Open-source defines access to the code and the freedom to modify it. Hosting and operational responsibility sit outside this scope. A project management tool can be open-source and still run on vendor infrastructure, or it can be deployed on infrastructure owned by the team.
This separation explains why open-source and self-hosted project management software represent different choices. One focuses on software transparency and extensibility. The other focuses on deployment, ownership, and day-to-day operations.
What “self-hosted” means in project management software
Self-hosted project management software refers to where the software runs and who operates it. In a self-hosted setup, the tool is deployed on infrastructure owned or managed by the team. This choice shifts responsibility from the vendor to the team across several operational areas.
What self-hosting actually implies
When a team chooses self-hosted project management software, they take ownership of the environment where the tool runs. This includes deciding how the software is deployed, monitored, and scaled. Self-hosting changes the relationship between the team and the tool from usage to operation.
This model appeals to teams that want direct control over how their systems behave in production and how they integrate with internal infrastructure.
How ownership changes with self-hosting
Self-hosting introduces clear operational responsibilities.
- Infrastructure ownership means teams manage servers, networking, and storage where the project management software lives.
- Update ownership means teams decide when and how upgrades are applied, including testing and rollout timing.
- Backup ownership means teams define backup policies, retention rules, and recovery processes.
- Security operations ownership means teams are responsible for access controls, patching, monitoring, and incident response.
These responsibilities require planning and internal ownership, especially as team size and usage grow.
Why teams choose self-hosting beyond privacy
Privacy is one reason teams explore self-hosted project management software, but it is rarely the only one. Many teams choose self-hosting to meet compliance requirements, align with internal security standards, or keep data within specific regions. Self-hosting also enables deeper integration with internal systems and provides teams with predictable control over performance and availability. For organizations with established engineering or operations capabilities, this control often outweighs the added responsibility.
The simplest way to understand the difference
Most discussions around open-source vs. self-hosted project management software treat them as a single choice. A more accurate way to evaluate project management platforms is to separate the decision into two axes. Each axis answers a different question about control and ownership, and together they explain how modern tools are built and deployed.
Axis 1: Source model (open-source vs. closed-source)
This axis describes access to the source code and the software's technical flexibility. Open-source project management software provides visibility into how the tool works and allows teams to extend or adapt it to their workflows. Closed-source project management software limits this access and confines customization to what the vendor supports. This axis influences transparency, extensibility, and the degree of control teams have over the product itself.
Axis 2: Hosting model (self-hosted vs. vendor-hosted)
This axis describes where the software runs and who operates it. Self-hosted project management software runs on infrastructure owned or managed by the team, which means the team is responsible for deployment, upgrades, backups, and security operations. Vendor-hosted project management software runs on vendor infrastructure, with operational work handled externally and teams focusing primarily on using the tool. This axis influences operational ownership and day-to-day responsibility.
Why should these axes be evaluated separately?
The source and hosting models address different decisions, so they should be evaluated independently. A project management tool can be open-source and vendor-hosted, closed-source and self-hosted, or open-source and self-hosted. Once these dimensions are separated, it becomes easier to understand trade-offs and evaluate tools based on responsibility, flexibility, and long-term ownership rather than labels.
Why does this model reflect modern project management tools
Many modern project management platforms combine elements from both axes through open-core models or flexible deployment options. Viewing open-source and self-hosted project management software through two separate axes reflects how teams actually choose tools today, based on control, operational maturity, and evolving needs.
Benefits and trade-offs of open-source project management software
Open-source project management software gives teams deeper involvement with the tools they rely on. This involvement brings clear advantages, along with responsibilities that teams should understand before choosing this model.
Benefits teams gain with open-source project management software
- Code visibility allows teams to understand how the software works under the hood. This transparency supports better trust, easier audits, and informed decisions around security and data handling.
- Customization potential grows when teams can extend workflows, build internal integrations, or adapt the tool to match how work actually happens. This flexibility becomes valuable for teams with specialized processes or evolving delivery models.
- Reduced long-term dependency is another advantage. Open-source software gives teams more control over their roadmap and reduces reliance on a single vendor’s priorities, which supports long-term planning and tool stability.
Trade-offs teams should plan for
- Maintenance effort increases when teams choose open-source project management software. Custom changes, version updates, and ongoing improvements require planning and ownership over time.
- Support expectations also differ. Instead of a single vendor-led support path, teams often rely on community support or internal expertise, which works best when teams have clear escalation paths and documentation.
- Internal expertise also plays a larger role. Teams need the skills to evaluate changes, manage extensions, and maintain the system in a healthy state. This requirement is a key factor when assessing readiness for open-source tools.
Benefits and trade-offs of self-hosted project management software
Self-hosted project management software gives teams direct control over how their tools run in production. This control brings operational advantages along with responsibilities that teams must be prepared to own.
Benefits teams gain with self-hosted project management software
- Data control is a primary advantage. Teams decide where data lives, how it is stored, and who can access it. This level of ownership supports internal governance requirements and clearer accountability.
- Deployment flexibility allows teams to run the software in environments that match their infrastructure standards. This includes choosing regions, configuring networking, and integrating the tool with internal systems.
- Compliance alignment becomes easier when teams manage their own deployment. Self-hosted setups support regulatory requirements around data residency, access controls, and auditability, especially for organizations operating in regulated environments.
Trade-offs teams should plan for
- Infrastructure ownership shifts responsibility to the team. Servers, storage, and networking require setup, maintenance, and ongoing capacity planning.
- Upgrade and monitoring effort also increases. Teams need to manage updates, track system health, and respond to incidents to keep the software reliable.
- Costs beyond licensing should be considered as well. Infrastructure, engineering time, and operational overhead contribute to the total cost of ownership for self-hosted project management software.
Open-source vs. self-hosted: Key differences
Open-source, self-hosted project management software influences many aspects of how a tool is built, run, and maintained. Comparing them side by side helps teams understand the control they gain, where responsibility sits, and how each choice affects long-term ownership. The table below breaks down the differences across dimensions that teams typically evaluate during tool selection.
Open-source vs. self-hosted project management software comparison
Comparison dimension | Open-source project management software | Self-hosted project management software |
|---|---|---|
Type of control | Control over the source code and how the product works | Control over the environment where the software runs |
Security responsibility | Visibility into security implementation at the code level | Responsibility for access controls, patching, and monitoring |
Customization boundaries | Deep customization through code changes and extensions | Customization through deployment setup and system integrations |
Maintenance ownership | Ownership of code changes, extensions, and upgrade paths | Ownership of infrastructure, deployments, and system health |
Cost structure | Lower licensing costs with investment in engineering effort | Infrastructure and operational costs, alongside any licensing |
Support models | Community support or optional commercial support | Internal teams or external partners handling operations |
How to read this comparison
Open-source describes how software is built and shared. Self-hosted describes where software runs and who operates it. Because they apply to different layers, project management tools can combine these models in multiple ways, which is why teams should evaluate them as separate but related decisions.
Where open-core project management software fits
Open-core project management software combines an open-source foundation with commercial layers that support advanced needs. This model reflects how many modern project management platforms evolve: teams want transparency and flexibility from an open codebase, and they also want a sustainable path for long-term development, support, and enterprise-grade deployment options.
What open-core means in project management software
In an open-core model, the core product is built as open-source, so teams can self-host, inspect the fundamentals, and extend workflows where needed. A commercial edition then adds optional capabilities and services designed for teams that require higher levels of governance, scale, or operational support.
Why do many project management tools use this model
Open-core exists because teams value openness, and vendors need a sustainable way to fund product development. This creates a practical balance:
- Openness supports flexibility, extensibility, and trust in how the tool works
- Commercial layers support ongoing development, structured support, and advanced deployment needs at scale
What teams should evaluate in an open-core tool
When evaluating open-core project management software, teams should focus on three areas:
- Feature boundaries: Understand what sits in the open-source core versus what requires a commercial edition, so expectations stay clear during adoption.
- Upgrade paths: Check how teams move between editions over time, especially when starting with an open-source setup and later requiring commercial capabilities.
- Long-term ownership: Decide what level of operational responsibility the team is ready to own, especially in self-hosted environments where upgrades, backups, and system health stay under internal ownership.
An example of open-core project management software in practice
Plane follows a model where teams can choose a hosted or self-hosted edition based on how much control and operational ownership they want. Plane’s self-hosted lineup includes an open-source Community Edition, a recommended Commercial Edition, and an Airgapped Edition for environments with stricter isolation requirements.
Plane Community Edition vs. Plane Commercial Edition
Plane offers multiple editions based on how teams choose to deploy and operate the product. This structure reflects the open-source, self-hosted, and open-core models discussed earlier, and shows how these concepts apply in a real project management platform.
Plane Community Edition
Plane Community Edition is the open-source foundation of Plane and is designed for self-hosted use. It is governed by the AGPL v3.0 license, which allows teams to freely use, inspect, modify, and customize the codebase.
This edition is built with transparency in mind. Teams can audit how the system works, understand how services interact, and contribute changes back to the repository. The Community Edition has no code dependencies or restrictions on the Commercial Edition, keeping the core product fully independent.
Community Edition is well-suited for teams that want to try Plane in a self-hosted setup, evaluate the code for security and architecture, or run the product with full operational ownership. Teams using this edition manage setup, maintenance, and upgrades themselves.
Plane Commercial Edition
Plane Commercial Edition is also self-hosted and is built on top of the open-source core using an open-core model. It is designed for teams that need stronger governance, compliance, and privacy controls as their usage grows.
This edition offers full feature parity with Plane’s Cloud offering and supports a clear upgrade path to paid plans. It includes a Free tier and provides a structured way for teams to unlock advanced work management and security capabilities when required.
Commercial Edition suits teams that want to remain self-hosted while reducing uncertainty around scaling, feature access, and upgrades. It reflects a shift toward more structured operations rather than a change in deployment model.
Why Plane offers both editions
Teams approach project management software with different goals and varying levels of maturity. Some teams prioritize transparency, experimentation, and full control over code and infrastructure. Others prioritize governance, predictability, and a smoother path to advanced capabilities as they scale.
By offering both Community and Commercial editions, Plane supports these different needs within the same product ecosystem. This allows teams to start with one level of ownership and evolve their setup over time without changing tools or rethinking their deployment model.
How teams choose the right approach in practice
Choosing between open-source, self-hosted, and hosted project management software depends on how teams balance control, responsibility, and speed. The right approach often reflects a team’s current operating model rather than an ideal future state.
When an open-source-first approach makes sense
An open-source-first approach works well for teams that value transparency and long-term flexibility. These teams often want to inspect how the software works, adapt workflows at a deeper level, or align tools closely with internal systems. This approach suits teams with engineering capacity to evaluate code, manage changes, and take ownership of how the product evolves over time.
When self-hosting becomes the priority
Self-hosted project management software becomes a priority when teams need direct control over data, infrastructure, and deployment. This is common for organizations with specific compliance requirements, internal security standards, or regional data policies. Teams choosing self-hosting are prepared to own upgrades, monitoring, backups, and system health as part of regular operations.
When a hosted setup is more practical
A hosted setup works best for teams that want faster adoption and lower operational overhead. In this model, the focus stays on using the tool rather than running it. Hosted project management software supports teams that value speed, predictable operations, and minimal infrastructure ownership, especially during early stages of growth.
Key factors teams evaluate before deciding
Internal ownership capacity shapes the amount of responsibility a team can realistically take on. Compliance requirements influence where data can live and how systems are operated. Customization needs determine whether the configuration is sufficient or deeper extensibility is required. Long-term flexibility versus speed determines whether teams prioritize immediate productivity or future adaptability.
Plane supports both approaches. Teams can use Plane as a hosted Cloud service or choose from self-hosted editions, allowing them to align deployments with their operational needs and evolve their setup over time without switching tools.
Common mistakes teams make when evaluating these options
Teams often approach open-source and self-hosted project management software with strong assumptions. These assumptions create gaps between expectations and day-to-day reality.
1. Treating self-hosted as a security shortcut
Self-hosted project management software changes where responsibility sits, but it does not remove it. Security outcomes depend on how well teams manage access controls, patching, monitoring, and incident response. Teams that choose self-hosting without clear operational ownership often struggle to maintain a consistent security posture over time.
2. Choosing open-source without planning maintenance ownership
Open-source project management software offers flexibility and transparency, but it also requires long-term maintenance decisions. Teams need to plan how code changes, extensions, and upgrades will be managed as the product evolves. Without this planning, customization becomes harder to sustain as usage grows.
3. Underestimating migration and lock-in costs
Tool decisions affect data models, workflows, and integrations. Migrating away from a project management platform often requires significant effort, even when the software is open-source or self-hosted. Teams benefit from understanding how data can be exported, how integrations are structured, and the long-term dependencies.
4. Treating the choice as a permanent decision
The team needs change over time. Early-stage teams may prioritize speed and simplicity, while growing teams focus more on control and governance. Viewing deployment and licensing choices as evolvable allows teams to adjust their setup as maturity, scale, and requirements change.
Final thoughts
Open-source, self-hosted project management software addresses different questions. Open-source focuses on how software is built, shared, and extended. Self-hosted focuses on where software runs and who owns its operation. Treating them as the same decision often leads to mismatched expectations.
Strong tool choices come from understanding ownership, capability, and long-term control. Teams benefit from evaluating how much responsibility they want to carry today and how that may change as they grow. When these decisions are made with clarity, project management platforms become long-term enablers rather than short-term fixes.
Frequently asked questions
Q1. What is the main disadvantage of open-source software?
The main disadvantage of open-source software is the responsibility that comes with ownership. Teams need to plan for maintenance, upgrades, and long-term support. Open-source project management software works best when teams have the capacity to manage changes, review updates, and sustain the system as it evolves.
Q2. What are the two main advantages of open-source software?
The two main advantages of open-source software are transparency and flexibility. Teams can inspect how the software works and adapt it to their workflows. Open-source project management software also supports long-term control by reducing dependence on a single vendor’s roadmap.
Q3. Can Plane be self-hosted?
Yes. Plane offers official self-hosted editions. Teams can run Plane on their own infrastructure using the Community Edition or one of the commercial self-hosted editions. Self-hosting means the software is deployed and managed by the team, rather than being hosted by Plane.
Q4. Is plane so open source?
Plane's core is open source, and it will stay open, stable, and yours to build on. Start in minutes, and never lose control of your data.
Q5. Which is better open-source or proprietary software?
The better option depends on a team’s goals and operating model. Open-source project management software suits teams that value transparency, customization, and long-term flexibility. Proprietary software suits teams that prioritize managed experiences and lower operational involvement. The right choice reflects ownership capacity, compliance needs, and long-term plans rather than a universal preference.
Recommended for you
Download for iOS
Download for Android