/jump to repo

Repos Recent Bookmarks Watched Notes Tags Discover Compare Stats GitHub

Repository brief

juspay/hyperswitch

Read the upstream summary on the left, browse the cached forks below it, and load each fork comparison into the right-hand panel.

Cached analysis

cached 2026-03-30T15:42:41.176Z

1mo ago

juspay/hyperswitch

Hyperswitch is an actively maintained Rust-based open source payments switch/infrastructure project with strong community traction: 41,761 stars, 4,578 forks, and a recent commit on 2026-03-30. It appears aimed at modular payments infrastructure rather than a narrow connector library, with features like routing, vault, reconciliation, cost observability, and revenue recovery described in the README.

Loading tags...

Stars41,761

Forks4,578

Default branchmain

Last pushed2026-03-30T15:32:16Z

Recommended shortcuts

Jump straight into Discofork's strongest cached fork picks, or open a compare view in one click.

Forks

Choose a fork to inspect

10 of 10 fork briefs

Maintenance:

Magnitude:

Sort:

Selected

Choose this fork only if you specifically want its custom payment-flow and connector changes and can own a large, stale divergence. If you want a maintained default, upstream is the safer base.

Choose this fork only if you want its custom payment flows and connector/documentation reshaping enough to justify owning a significant maintenance burden. If you want close upstream compatibility or low-risk adoption, upstream is the safer choice.

Choose this fork only if you need its specific 2024 customizations and accept a large maintenance burden. For most adopters, upstream is the better choice because it is far more current and actively maintained.

Choose this fork only if you want a heavily customized payments switch and are willing to own the divergence. For most adopters, upstream is the safer default because this fork is far behind and appears to have removed or reshaped major parts of the API and connector layer.

Prefer this fork only if you need its custom payment/workflow surface and are prepared to maintain a long-lived divergence. If you want current upstream features, connector fixes, and lower maintenance risk, upstream is the safer default.

Prefer this fork only if you need its specific custom API/test/config shape and are willing to own a large rebase burden. For most adopters, upstream is the better choice because this fork is stale and significantly behind.

Choose this fork only if you want its specific payment/API customizations and are prepared to own divergence. If you want a broadly compatible, actively maintained Hyperswitch base, upstream is the safer choice.

Prefer upstream unless you specifically need this fork's older customizations. This fork looks more like a bespoke maintenance branch than a healthy upstream alternative, with enough divergence that adopting it means inheriting significant rebase and support burden.

Prefer upstream unless you specifically need this fork’s older analytics/email/connector-verification work and are prepared to maintain a large divergence. For new adopters, the fork’s stale state and deleted reference assets make it a poor default choice.

Prefer this fork only if you need its custom payments and connector behavior. If your goal is to stay close to upstream Hyperswitch, this branch looks too divergent and too far behind to be the safer base.

Fork comparison

e1michi/hyperswitch

38/100

stale

significant_divergence

Choose this fork only if you specifically want its custom payment-flow and connector changes and can own a large, stale divergence. If you want a maintained default, upstream is the safer base.

Likely purpose

A heavily customized downstream payments-switch fork that appears to add or rework specific payment flows, connector behavior, and API artifacts for a custom deployment.

Best for

Teams that need custom payment flows and are comfortable owning a divergent payments platform.; Integrators validating bespoke connector or checkout behavior before upstreaming it.; Organizations with engineering capacity to rebase regularly and absorb API/test churn.; Not a good fit for teams that want a low-maintenance, near-upstream distribution.

Additional features

Expanded payment flow support including MOTO payments, mandate flows, MIT retries, and guest customer handling.
Connector-specific behavior updates, including 3DS and tokenization-related fixes for PSP integrations.
Updated API and test surfaces, with large changes to OpenAPI specs, Postman collections, and Cypress coverage.
Operational and routing behavior changes around payments, dispute validation, blocklist handling, and payment-method logic.
Expands API, schema, or SDK surface area for downstream integrations and generated clients.
Introduces more operational workflow surface such as server-side handling, auth, session control, or admin tooling.

Missing features

The fork is 200 commits behind upstream and likely misses newer upstream work such as modular-merchant network-token/NTI flows and other March 2026 payments improvements.
Recent upstream fixes around payment methods, routing, connector behavior, and CI validation are absent from this snapshot.
Large API reference deletions suggest some upstream endpoints, docs, or supported workflows may be reduced or harder to use here.
You would likely need to rebase or port forward manually to keep pace with upstream connector and platform changes.
It trails upstream by 200 commits, so some recent upstream features and fixes are likely not present yet.

Strengths

Looks tailored for specific payment-product needs rather than a vanilla upstream mirror.
Adds concrete checkout and authorization workflows that some merchants may need immediately.
Includes broad API and automated test updates, which helps validate custom behavior.
Still based on the same Rust payments-switch architecture, so it remains recognizable to upstream adopters.

Risks

High divergence makes upstream merges and security/feature backports more expensive.
A stale fork increases the chance of connector drift and API incompatibility.
Downstream adopters may inherit deleted or replaced workflows without clear migration paths.
The fork’s maintenance signal is weak relative to upstream’s active cadence.