Zammad, FreeScout, osTicket or Chatwoot: self-hosted helpdesk compared

Do several people work the same mailbox? WZ-IT sets up helpdesk systems, migrates what exists and takes on operations, see managed open source. Discuss your setup

With open-source helpdesk systems the feature list is rarely the problem. All candidates manage tickets, assign them, escalate and report.

The problem is where the free edition ends, and this field shows four different architectures for that. In one case the boundary sits in the repository you clone. In another the code is fully open source and still costs money.

This article assesses four active systems, names the boundary for each, and starts with the ones you can strike off.

All details from the repositories and licence files, as of 31 August 2026.

Table of contents

• One candidate fewer than in most lists
• The candidates at a glance
• Four ways to draw a commercial boundary
• Zammad
• FreeScout
• osTicket
• Chatwoot
• Why LDAP almost always sits behind the boundary
• Which one for which situation
• How we approach this at WZ-IT
• Further guides

One candidate fewer than in most lists

Peppermint appears in many recommendation lists for open-source helpdesk systems. The repository is archived and the last push dates from 21 September 2025.

For a new deployment that is not a basis. We list it here because it still appears in lists, and because a glance at the archive flag can save two weeks of evaluation work.

That leaves four that are genuinely maintained.

The candidates at a glance

Figures from the public repositories, as of 31 August 2026.

Four ways to draw a commercial boundary

Across our comparisons three architectures have shown up so far. This field adds a fourth.

The fourth is the most unusual. With FreeScout both the core and the modules are under AGPL-3.0. What is paid for is not the licence but access to the module. The software is therefore fully open source in the legal sense and still costs money in the practical sense once you need particular features.

That is not an accusation, but it makes the usual test question useless. "Is the code open" does not answer here what you end up paying.

Zammad

Zammad comes from Berlin and is the most complete of the four in the classic sense: email, telephone, chat, social networks, canned replies, knowledge base, escalation rules and traceable states.

The repository is under AGPL-3.0 and contains no directory with a differing licence. What is sold is hosted operation plus support and consulting for self-hosting.

A caveat for accuracy: the pricing page describes the paid offerings as hosting, support and consulting, but does not expressly document that the self-hosted edition is feature-equivalent. Anyone relying on a particular feature should have that confirmed before deciding rather than inferring it from the licence text.

For procurement with European stewardship requirements, Zammad is the most straightforward case of the four.

FreeScout

FreeScout is designed to replace a shared mailbox and is strongest there. The interface deliberately resembles a mailbox, which eases adoption in teams that have worked without a helpdesk so far.

The core is under AGPL-3.0 and free. The boundary sits at the modules. Sold as paid lifetime licences per installation are, among others:

• reporting
• time tracking
• workflows
• knowledge base
• LDAP integration

The modules are themselves under AGPL-3.0. What is paid for is access.

In practice that means: as free software, FreeScout is a mailbox with assignment. As soon as evaluations, time tracking or central authentication are needed, cost arises. That is calculable, because they are lifetime licences, but it belongs before the selection rather than after it.

osTicket

osTicket is the oldest of the four and the leanest. Classic ticketing over email and web form, queues, assignment, custom fields. It is under GPL-2.0.

Its development rhythm differs from the others: the last push dates from 17 June 2026, while the other three were updated at the end of August. That is not a standstill, but it is a noticeably different pace.

For environments where a system has run for years and does what it should, that is unproblematic. For a new deployment it is a point worth knowing.

Chatwoot

At 36,325 stars Chatwoot is the most visible project and at the same time the one that is least a helpdesk. Its focus is conversations across many channels: website chat, messengers, social networks.

The licence is split, and the boundary sits in the repository. The main body is under MIT. Everything under enterprise/ falls under its own licence tying production use to a valid subscription with the correct seat count.

That is the most transparent form of a commercial boundary, because it is visible in the directory tree. Anyone wanting to know what belongs to the free edition looks in the directory and knows. The same architecture appears with NetBird and Netmaker.

For classic email support with deadlines and escalation, Chatwoot is not the obvious choice. For customer communication over chat and messengers it is the strongest of the four.

Why LDAP almost always sits behind the boundary

Across all comparisons in this series the same pattern appears, and it is by now too clear to leave unmentioned:

Integration with central user management is the feature that turns a tool from a personal one into a company one. Anyone who needs it generally also has a budget. That is why it sits so reliably on the paid side.

From this follows a test question that belongs before any feature comparison: do accounts have to be managed centrally? If so, integration with Keycloak or Authentik belongs in the cost calculation, and with some of the candidates it means a contract.

Which one for which situation

How we approach this at WZ-IT

We start with the question of whether a helpdesk system is needed at all. From around three people on the same address it pays off; below that a shared mailbox with clear agreements is usually the simpler answer.

Then we settle the authentication question, because with one candidate it triggers cost, and the question of reporting, because with FreeScout it means a module. Both before the feature comparison, not after.

When moving off a shared mailbox, deliverability is the delicate part. We set up the redirect so that during the switch no message arrives twice or not at all, and rehearse it beforehand. What to watch there we described in the mail server comparison.

Further guides

• Self-hosted Jira alternatives - the same boundary question for project tools
• Nextcloud, Seafile, OpenCloud or ownCloud - LDAP behind the paywall
• Mesh VPN compared - commercial code in the same repository
• Zammad at WZ-IT - setup and operations
• Managed open source - operating open-source applications

Unclear which system fits your team? We settle authentication and reporting first, because that is where the cost sits, and then set up the system that fits. Book a call

Sources

• Zammad on GitHub
• Zammad: pricing and scope
• FreeScout on GitHub
• FreeScout: module catalogue with the paid extensions
• osTicket on GitHub
• Chatwoot on GitHub
• Chatwoot: licence text delimiting the enterprise/ directory