Sahha vs Open Wearables

Open Wearables is free. Your engineers are not.

Open Wearables is genuinely free and genuinely maintained: MIT licensed, commercial use permitted, eighteen releases in eight months. What the licence does not cover is the infrastructure under it, the engineers who keep it running, the compliance work that becomes yours the moment you deploy, and a scoring layer their own documentation still describes as in development. Sahha is that same stack, operated and validated, at a published price.

Choose Sahha if

  • You want a managed platform, not infrastructure to operate
  • Your users include people with no wearable
  • You need a vendor accountable for uptime, support and a BAA
  • You want scoring validated on published research

Choose Open Wearables if

  • You already operate infrastructure at scale and want no licence fee
  • Data cannot leave your own infrastructure
  • A regulator or ethics board must audit the scoring line by line
  • You accept the ops burden to remove all vendor risk
Start free See the evidence
Coverage

What exists on the day you start.

Both collect from wearables and both can read a phone. The difference is how much of the path from raw signal to a usable score is already built, and who builds the rest.

Sahha

82–97%

Smartphone ownership across surveyed markets. Five scores, 100+ biomarkers and 14 archetypes compute from phone signal alone, on iOS and Android alike, from the first day.

Open Wearables

13–46%

Wearable ownership across surveyed markets. Health Connect and Samsung Health give Android users a phone path, but their documentation marked the Apple HealthKit mobile SDK as coming soon in July 2026 while their marketing counted Apple Health as supported, and their own comparison page describes the scoring layer as in active development while ingestion is production-ready.

Eighteen releases between December 2025 and July 2026, so anything marked coming soon is a moving target and may have shipped since. Check the repository rather than any comparison page, this one included.

Open Wearables providers
Output

The same layers. One of them you finish yourself.

Open Wearables ships ingestion that its own documentation calls production-ready, with sleep and resilience scoring described as basic and in active development. Health insights, automations, an AI assistant and embeddable widgets are marked coming soon in the repository. Everything above ingestion is either yours to write or yours to wait for.

Open Wearables repo
Open Wearables
Normalized metrics Ten providers, eight direct cloud OAuth
Scores Sleep and resilience, in active development
Archetypes Not documented
Tags Not documented
Insights Marked coming soon
Sahha
Granular data Raw sensor logs, included
Biomarkers 100+ across six categories
Scores Five, all working phone-only
Archetypes 14 archetypes, 100+ values
Tags Writable, 75+ symptom and reproductive terms
Insights Trends and comparisons
Price

Free is a licence, not a total.

The MIT licence is genuinely free, at any scale, with commercial use and resale permitted. What it does not cover is the infrastructure underneath it or the people who keep it running, and the version carrying a BAA and an SLA is priced on application.

What a production deployment costs Open Wearables Sahha
Licence Free, MIT, forever $399/month
Infrastructure $200 to $500/month, their estimate Included
Engineering to run it Not costed Included
Provider credentials You apply to each one Included
Security and compliance work Yours: patching, pentests, evidence SOC 2, HIPAA and GDPR maintained
BAA and SLA Enterprise, on application $1,499/month, published
Before engineering time $200 to $500 $399

Their infrastructure estimate is their own, published, and it covers a deployment rather than a user, so it moves with ingest and storage as users accumulate while the licence stays flat. Several provider programmes take weeks to approve. They also state plainly that compliance is the deployer’s responsibility, which in practice means you patch the stack when a dependency advisory lands, you commission the penetration tests, and you produce the audit evidence when a customer asks for it. None of that is a criticism of the project and all of it recurs. Whether the total comes in under a subscription depends entirely on what your engineering hours are worth, which is a question with a real answer rather than a rhetorical one.

Open Wearables pricing What building this actually costs
Validation

Two different kinds of auditable.

Open Wearables can be audited by reading it. The scoring is MIT-licensed and modifiable, so an ethics board or a regulator can follow the calculation line by line, and you can change anything you disagree with. Against any closed score, including ours, that is a real advantage and the strongest argument on their side of this page.

What the code cannot tell you is whether the output corresponds to anything. Their own materials describe the scoring as basic and in active development, and do not point to a study, a sample or an ethics approval behind it. Readable and validated are different properties, and a product can have either without the other.

Sahha publishes the study underneath its models with sample size, ethics approval and limitations stated, and runs the same models on every deployment, so a score means the same thing in your product as in anyone else. You cannot read the code.

2,068
participants
26,888
PHQ-9 responses
21/074
Otago ethics approval
Read the research Open Wearables repo
Limitations

What Sahha does not do.

You cannot read our scoring code
Open Wearables is MIT-licensed end to end, so the calculation is inspectable and modifiable. For research, digital therapeutics, or anything going in front of an ethics board, being able to show the working line by line is worth more than any published study about someone else’s deployment.
There is no zero-licence option
Sahha starts at $399/month and there is no free production tier. If you already operate infrastructure at scale, already have the engineers, and the licence line is the one your finance team is looking at, free is genuinely free and no argument here changes that.
Your data lives on our infrastructure
Sahha runs where we run it, so we are a sub-processor in your GDPR chain and one more vendor security review. Open Wearables deploys through Docker Compose to AWS, GCP, Azure or your own hardware, single-tenant by design, which removes a sub-processor rather than adding one. Where health data is contractually barred from leaving your environment, or deployment location is a procurement requirement rather than a preference, that decides it before any feature comparison starts.
Switching

Moving between self-hosted and managed

Most of a move in this category is mechanical. One part is not, and it is worth knowing which before you commit either way.

  1. Open Wearables live
    Sahha live
    new signups → Sahha

    Start on the free trial while the stack still runs

    Build against Sahha’s sandbox on the 30-day free trial without decommissioning anything. The comparison you want is your own data through both, and nothing requires turning the self-hosted deployment off.

  2. A

    Allow “your app”

    Sleep
    Activity
    Connect

    Re-consent depends on who owns the connection

    When a user connects a wearable, that permission belongs to whoever registered the connection. Sahha uses accounts you create and own, so connections you already hold move across and your users do nothing. Where your current vendor owns them, users approve once more, into an account that is then yours. Phone data is unaffected either way: Apple Health and Health Connect grant it to your app, not to the code inside it.

  3. Sleep · last 30 days backfilled
    30d ago today

    Scores will not match, and should not be expected to

    Sahha and Open Wearables compute different scores from different models, so historical values will not line up. Plan for a visible discontinuity in any trend chart your product already shows, or re-baseline at the switch.

  4. # one webhook consumer POST /sahha/webhook { "profileId": …, "scores": […] }

    Export stays available

    Sahha exports your data on request, and the MIT licence means an Open Wearables deployment cannot be taken away from you. Neither choice is a one-way door, which is the reasonable thing to verify before making it.

The decision that actually matters here is not the migration, it is whether you want to operate the infrastructure. Everything else is a few weeks of work in either direction.
Evidence

Line by line.

The checks that rarely decide a comparison but always come up before signing.

Criterion Sahha Open Wearables
Is the project actively maintained? Continuously deployed. Every customer is on the current version. Yes, and visibly. Roughly 2,200 GitHub stars, 52 contributors, and eighteen releases between December 2025 and July 2026. Open Wearables releases
What does it run on? Our infrastructure. You integrate an API and a mobile SDK. FastAPI, PostgreSQL, Redis and Celery, deployed through Docker Compose or Railway, single-tenant by design. All of it yours to operate. Open Wearables architecture
Is Apple Health supported? Yes. Apple HealthKit is a primary collection path on iOS. Their marketing pages list Apple Health among supported providers, while their documentation marks the mobile SDK for it as coming soon, as of July 2026. A bulk XML import path exists, which is not live sync. Open Wearables providers
How many providers are documented? 800+ devices through Apple HealthKit and Health Connect, plus four direct cloud connections: Oura, WHOOP, Garmin and Dexcom. Ten: Garmin, Whoop, Polar, Suunto, Strava, Fitbit, Oura, Ultrahuman, Google Health Connect and Samsung Health. Open Wearables providers
Can I fork it and keep it forever? No. Your data exports on request and the pricing is published, so the renewal holds no surprises. The models stay ours. Yes. MIT licence, commercial use and resale permitted, and the code keeps working regardless of what happens to the vendor. Open Wearables pricing
Is it HIPAA compliant out of the box? HIPAA and GDPR compliant, with DPA and BAA from the Pro tier. They state Open Wearables is not HIPAA-certified as a product and that compliance is the deployer’s responsibility. A BAA is Enterprise-only. Open Wearables FAQ
Is there a SOC 2 report? Yes. They state SOC 2 certification is not currently pursued for Open Wearables as an open-source project. Open Wearables FAQ

Every Open Wearables claim links to their own documentation. Verified 2026-07-26.

FAQ

Sahha vs Open Wearables, answered

How much does Sahha cost at 10,000 users?

$1,499 per month billed annually, on the Pro tier, which includes every feature plus DPA and BAA. Sahha’s pricing is published in full: Free, $299/mo for 1,000 users, $1,499/mo for 10,000, then custom. Some third-party comparisons describe Sahha’s pricing as "custom" or estimate several thousand dollars per month at this volume. The published figures are on our pricing page.

Is self-hosting actually free?

The licence is. The infrastructure is not, and neither is the engineering time. Open Wearables estimates $200 to $500 per month in infrastructure for a production startup, and separately notes that you obtain your own developer credentials from each provider, several of which require programme approval that can take weeks. That estimate covers the deployment rather than a user, and it moves with ingest and storage as users accumulate, so the licence is flat where the bill is not. The version carrying a BAA, HIPAA-eligible infrastructure and an SLA is their Enterprise plan, which is priced on application. Whether any of that totals less than a managed subscription depends entirely on what your engineering hours are worth.

How many providers does each support?

Open Wearables documents ten providers, of which eight are direct cloud OAuth connections. Sahha reaches 800+ devices through Apple HealthKit and Google Health Connect, plus a growing set of direct cloud connections. The two count different things, so the honest comparison is by the specific sources you need rather than by headline number.

Does Open Wearables support Apple Health?

Their documentation marks the Apple Health mobile SDK as "coming soon" as of July 2026, while listing Apple Health among supported providers on their marketing pages. A bulk XML import path exists, which is not the same as live sync. Worth checking their current docs before assuming either way, since this is exactly the kind of thing that changes.

Can I move from one to the other later?

In both directions, with effort. Sahha exports your data and the MIT licence means Open Wearables cannot be taken away from you. The cost in either direction is re-consenting users for provider connections, which is the same wherever you go in this category.

Keep comparing

Same research standard, same sourcing. See all comparisons .

All Open Wearables information on this page reflects publicly available documentation as of July 2026, linked at the point of each claim. Product details change. If something here is out of date or inaccurate, email support@sahha.ai and we will correct it. Trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Sahha is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by Open Wearables.

Try the managed version first.

Run the managed version on your own users first. If self-hosting still looks better after that, you will at least know exactly what you are replacing.

Start free Read the research

Free for 30 days · No credit card · No sales call