Cal.com
Open-source scheduling infrastructure
Static comparison
Cal.com and Calendly are close or missing enough comparable score evidence. Use the evidence rows instead of forcing a fake winner.
Open-source scheduling infrastructure
Scheduling automation platform
| Use case | Booking & Reservations | Booking & Reservations |
|---|---|---|
| Openness | Open core | Proprietary target |
| License | MIT | License unknown |
| Health | 84 | Not Scored |
| Shipping | 71 | Not Scored |
| ToolVitals score | 79 | Not Scored |
| Data confidence | 90 | 30 |
| Source coverage | 90 | 20 |
| GitHub stars | 48,329 | — |
| Forks | 15,069 | — |
| Watchers | 212 | — |
| Open issues | 1,435 | — |
| Last commit | Sep 11, 2026 | — |
| Commits (30d) | 5 | — |
| Commits (90d) | 46 | — |
| Active contributors (90d) | 28 | — |
| Releases (90d) | 0 | — |
| Status reason | Commit continuity, contributor activity, and delivery signals are strong. | ToolVitals does not score proprietary or unknown-license tools because their public source evidence is not comparable to open/source-visible projects. |
Decision notes
Both tools are tracked under Booking & Reservations, so this is a closer alternative comparison.
At least one score is missing enough comparable evidence, so inspect the rows instead of forcing a winner.
Cal.com is tracked as open core with high confidence in ToolVitals data.
Calendly is tracked as proprietary target with limited confidence in ToolVitals data.
Cal.com and Calendly are close or missing enough comparable score evidence. Use the evidence rows instead of forcing a fake winner.
Yes. ToolVitals classifies both tools in the Booking & Reservations use case, so the score, health, shipping, source coverage, and license rows can be read as a close comparison.
No. Sponsors and affiliate links do not affect ToolVitals scores, rankings, risk labels, or evidence display.
Affiliate CTAs, when present, use sponsored links and never affect scores, rankings, risk labels, evidence freshness, or comparison verdicts.