RybbitL Open source Google Analytics replacement
An open-source web analytics tool, Rybbit, is introduced as a privacy-focused alternative to Google Analytics and competitors like Plausible, Umami, Matomo, and PostHog, prompting comparisons on features, performance, and pricing. Commenters debate the legality and ethics of “cookieless” tracking under GDPR and the ePrivacy Directive, especially around IP-based fingerprinting, hashing, and data retention. Others question whether small sites need client-side analytics at all, highlight server-log-based approaches, and examine the crowded market and business viability of yet another analytics platform.
Positioning vs existing tools
- Comparisons focus on Plausible, Umami, Matomo, PostHog, Fathom, Simple Analytics, etc.
- Rybbit is pitched as more feature-rich than Plausible (e.g. funnels) while staying intuitive, and fully open source (AGPL) without a separate “enterprise-only” feature split.
- Some see it as very similar to Umami (TypeScript/Next.js, minimal UI); creator says it’s written from scratch with a similar stack.
- Rybbit currently has only a trial for hosted use, but the creator plans to add a free tier and is undecided on monetization. Goal is to “fill the space” between simple privacy tools (Plausible) and heavy product suites (PostHog).
Privacy, IP addresses, and GDPR/ePrivacy
- Rybbit advertises cookie-less, GDPR-compliant tracking but relies on IP-based identification (with optional IP hashing and salting).
- Long debate on whether hashed IPs are “anonymous.”
- One side: hashing (even with salt) is pseudonymization; IPs are personal data per EU case law; processing them at all triggers GDPR, and ePrivacy may require consent even if data is deleted quickly.
- Others argue enforcement is inconsistent, law is unclear/being revised, and privacy-focused analytics are acting in the spirit of GDPR.
- It’s noted that Rybbit’s non-salted mode (supporting retention reporting) may conflict with stricter ePrivacy interpretations, though this is unresolved.
Do you need analytics at all?
- Some argue the best replacement is “no analytics,” especially for personal sites: fewer scripts, better performance, less ego/vanity.
- Many push back strongly: marketing and product teams rely on analytics for conversion tracking, feature usage, debugging UX issues, and not wasting spend.
- Several emphasize that even server-log analysis still raises privacy and consent obligations in the EU.
Server-side and log-based analytics
- Multiple commenters prefer server-side or log-based tools (e.g. GoAccess, custom scripts) to avoid extra JS and reduce bot inflation.
- Others note cache layers and bots make raw logs imperfect and that modern tools still offer superior convenience and filtering.
Crowded market and trust
- The space is seen as heavily saturated, but with many niches: self-hosted vs SaaS, simple vs complex, web vs product analytics, privacy-focused vs ad-tech-heavy.
- Some prefer open source + self-hosting over sending data to big platforms; others note startups can be acquired, so trust is fragile regardless of size.