Open Source Loom Alternatives in 2026: A Practical Comparison
Loom changed how teams communicate asynchronously. But as Atlassian pushes prices higher and more organizations ask where their video data actually lives, the search for alternatives has grown.
This post compares the open source options available today. I built one of them (SendRec), so I’ll be upfront about that bias — but I’ll try to be honest about where each tool shines and where it doesn’t.
Why open source matters for screen recording
Screen recordings often contain sensitive information: product demos with unreleased features, internal discussions, customer data visible on screen, credentials accidentally shown. Where that data lives — and who controls it — matters more than most teams realize.
Open source screen recording tools give you three things proprietary tools can’t:
- Audit the code. You can verify there’s no telemetry, no data exfiltration, no hidden upload to third-party services.
- Self-host. Your videos stay on infrastructure you control. No third-party cloud provider in the data path.
- No vendor lock-in. If the project dies or changes direction, you have the source code. Export your data and move on.
The contenders
Loom (proprietary baseline)
Loom isn’t open source, but it’s the tool everyone compares against, so it’s worth including as a reference point.
What it does well: Polish. Loom’s desktop app and Chrome extension are smooth. The editing tools (trim, stitch, filler word removal) work reliably. AI-generated summaries and chapters are available on the Business tier. The brand recognition means recipients know what a Loom link is.
The trade-offs:
- Pricing: $15–20/user/month. AI features locked to the $20 Business tier. Enterprise pricing is opaque.
- Free tier: 25 videos total (not per month), 5-minute max, 720p only.
- Data: US-hosted on AWS. No option for EU data residency. No self-hosting.
- Lock-in: Closed source. If Atlassian changes pricing or shuts it down, your video library is at risk.
Loom is the right choice if your team is US-based, budget isn’t a concern, and data residency doesn’t matter.
Cap
Cap is a newer open source screen recorder with a growing community (17,000+ GitHub stars). It takes a desktop-app-first approach.
What it does well: Beautiful desktop app for macOS and Windows. Local-first recording with optional cloud upload. The Studio editing mode offers frame-level control. Lifetime license option ($58) is attractive for individual users.
The trade-offs:
- Desktop app required. No browser-based recording. This is a dealbreaker for some teams — you can’t send someone a link and say “record a response.”
- No Linux support. Desktop app is macOS and Windows only.
- Commercial use requires paid license. The AGPL license is open source, but Cap’s commercial license prohibits free commercial use. If your company uses it, you need the paid plan.
- Limited team features. No workspaces, no role-based access, no SSO, no SCIM. It’s designed for individual creators, not teams.
- US-based. Cloud storage is US-hosted. Self-hosting is possible but the documentation is more focused on the cloud offering.
- No comments or reactions on videos. Collaboration happens outside the tool.
Cap is the right choice if you want a polished desktop recording app for personal use and don’t need team features or browser-based recording.
Zight (formerly CloudApp)
Zight rebranded from CloudApp in 2023. It’s a screenshot and screen recording tool aimed at support and sales teams.
What it does well: Quick screenshots and GIF creation alongside video recording. Good integrations with support tools. Annotation tools for marking up screenshots.
The trade-offs:
- Not open source. Closed source, US-hosted on AWS.
- Free tier expires old content. Only your last 50 uploads are accessible — older ones disappear. This is a nasty surprise if you’re not expecting it.
- Pricing: $9–11/user/month. Less expensive than Loom but still adds up for teams.
- Limited video features. No comments, no reactions, no email gate, no embeddable player, no custom thumbnails. It’s primarily a screenshot tool that also does video.
- No self-hosting. No option to run on your own infrastructure.
Zight is the right choice if screenshots are your primary use case and video is secondary.
SendRec
SendRec is what I’ve been building — an open source async video platform focused on EU data residency and team use cases. Full disclosure: I’m the developer.
What it does well:
- Browser-based recording. Screen, camera, or both. No desktop app required, works on any OS.
- Full team features. Workspaces with roles (owner, admin, member, viewer), SSO (OIDC + SAML), SCIM provisioning, per-workspace branding and billing.
- Rich video features. Timestamped comments, reactions, password-protected links, email gate, embeddable player, analytics with per-viewer engagement data, custom CTAs.
- AI transcription. 99 languages via whisper.cpp, AI summaries, chapters, filler word removal, trim by transcript. Bring your own model — no data sent to external AI services.
- Self-hosting. Single Docker Compose command. Go binary + PostgreSQL + S3-compatible storage. Runs on a $10/month VPS.
- EU data residency. Managed instance runs on Hetzner in Germany. No US cloud providers in the data path.
The trade-offs:
- No desktop app. Browser-only recording. Works well for most use cases, but you can’t record native app windows that block screen capture.
- Smaller community. ~40 GitHub stars vs Cap’s 17,000+. The project is younger and less proven.
- Solo developer. I’m building this as one person. Response times for issues are reasonable but not instant.
- Free tier has limits. 25 videos/month, 5-minute max duration on the managed instance. Self-hosted has no limits.
SendRec is the right choice if your team needs EU data residency, self-hosting, or team features like SSO and workspaces alongside async video.
Feature comparison
| Feature | Loom | Cap | Zight | SendRec |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Open source | No | Yes (AGPL) | No | Yes (AGPL) |
| Self-hostable | No | Yes | No | Yes |
| Browser recording | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Desktop app | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Linux support | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| Team workspaces | Yes | No | Limited | Yes |
| SSO / SAML | Enterprise | No | Enterprise | Yes (Pro) |
| SCIM provisioning | Enterprise | No | No | Yes |
| Comments | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| AI transcription | $20/user | Paid | No | Yes (free, local) |
| Per-viewer analytics | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| Password protection | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Email gate | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| Custom branding | Enterprise | No | No | Yes (Pro) |
| EU data residency | No | No | No | Yes |
| Free commercial use | N/A | No | N/A | Yes |
Pricing comparison
| Tier | Loom | Cap | Zight | SendRec |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Free | 25 videos total, 5 min, 720p | Local only, no commercial use | Last 50 uploads, 5 min | 25 videos/month, 5 min |
| Paid | $15–20/user/month | $12/month or $58 lifetime | $9–11/user/month | €8–12/month |
| Self-hosted | N/A | Free (non-commercial) | N/A | Free, unlimited |
Which one should you pick?
Choose Loom if: Budget isn’t a concern, you want maximum polish, your team is US-based, and data residency doesn’t matter.
Choose Cap if: You want a beautiful desktop recording app for personal use and don’t need team features or browser recording.
Choose Zight if: Screenshots are your primary workflow and video is a secondary feature.
Choose SendRec if: You need EU data residency, want to self-host, or need team features (SSO, workspaces, SCIM) with an open source tool you can audit.
Try them
- Loom — sign up for free tier
- Cap — download the desktop app
- Zight — sign up for free tier
- SendRec — sign up or self-host from GitHub
If you’re evaluating async video tools for your team and have questions about any of these, feel free to reach out at hello@sendrec.eu. Happy to help even if you don’t end up choosing SendRec.