Koha vs. Evergreen: Comparing Two Leading Open-Source Library Systems
Koha and Evergreen are two of the most established and widely adopted open-source Integrated Library Systems (ILS) in the world. Both platforms offer robust functionality for cataloging, circulation, acquisitions, and reporting—making them capable solutions for a wide range of libraries.
While both share open-source principles and active development communities, Koha and Evergreen differ significantly in their design philosophies, customization potential, and ideal use cases.
Overview
| Feature Category | Koha | Evergreen |
|---|---|---|
| Interface | Modern, user-friendly, highly customizable | Functional, admin-focused |
| Customization | High (via plugins, themes, APIs) | Moderate (more rigid, requires deep expertise) |
| Scalability | Good for all sizes; especially small-to-mid | Excellent for large and consortial systems |
| Hosting Flexibility | Self-hosted, cloud, or vendor-managed | Typically vendor- or consortium-hosted |
| Community Support | Large, global, collaborative | Strong, especially in North America |
| Cost Model | Free/open-source; multiple vendor options | Free/open-source; consortium-focused support |
1. User Interface and Usability
Koha is praised for its modern, intuitive web interface that simplifies day-to-day workflows for library staff and enhances the public catalog (OPAC) experience for patrons. Libraries can customize the look and feel using built-in tools and templates, including branding and theming for the OPAC.
Evergreen has a utilitarian interface designed with high-volume operations in mind. While functional and powerful, it may feel less intuitive for new users or smaller libraries with limited training resources. Recent updates have improved usability, but customization typically requires more technical expertise.
Verdict:
-
Koha: More user-friendly and visually flexible.
-
Evergreen: Prioritizes function and performance over aesthetics.
2. Flexibility and Customization
Koha is highly modular, with broad support for plugins, third-party integrations, and REST APIs. It suits libraries that need tailored workflows, feature extensions, or integration with external systems (e.g., payment gateways, discovery layers, LDAP).
Evergreen is also customizable but tends to require deeper technical knowledge and development resources. Its configuration and plugin architecture are less accessible to non-developers. However, Evergreen shines in environments where uniformity across multiple branches is essential.
Verdict:
-
Koha: Better for libraries seeking autonomy and rapid customization.
-
Evergreen: More structured, suited to standardized, large-scale deployments.
3. Scalability and Performance
Evergreen was designed with large public library systems and consortia in mind. It scales exceptionally well, handling millions of records and complex resource-sharing workflows. Its stability under high-volume circulation loads is a key strength.
Koha is also scalable and widely used by multi-branch libraries, but its architecture is better suited to small-to-mid-sized libraries or those with simpler resource-sharing needs. While it can be used in consortial setups, doing so may require additional configuration and tuning.
Verdict:
-
Koha: Scalable for a range of sizes, with easier setup for small libraries.
-
Evergreen: Best for large libraries and consortia with demanding circulation volumes.
4. Cost and Vendor Options
Both Koha and Evergreen are free to download and use under open-source licenses. However, most libraries rely on commercial support or consortium infrastructure for hosting, upgrades, and maintenance.
Koha is offered by numerous vendors worldwide, providing libraries with competitive options and flexible pricing models. This can be a cost-effective route for small libraries or institutions with limited budgets.
Evergreen support is often coordinated through consortia or regional agencies, with fewer independent commercial providers. This model works well for centralized systems but may offer less flexibility in pricing and customization.
Verdict:
-
Koha: More vendor options and cost flexibility.
-
Evergreen: Best in consortium-backed models with pooled resources.
5. Support and Community
Koha has a large and diverse global community of users, contributors, and vendors. This results in frequent updates, international language support, and extensive documentation. Users benefit from both community forums and commercial vendors offering support packages.
Evergreen also has a strong and collaborative community, particularly active in North America. It is closely associated with state and regional library consortia, which often coordinate development and support collaboratively.
Verdict:
-
Koha: Broader international reach and vendor diversity.
-
Evergreen: Stronger in consortium-driven environments with centralized IT support.
Summary
| Choose Koha if… | Choose Evergreen if… |
|---|---|
| – You need a customizable, user-friendly ILS | – You run a large or high-volume library system |
| – You operate a small-to-mid-sized or single library | – You’re part of a library consortium |
| – You want vendor flexibility or self-hosted options | – You need robust stability for shared networks |
| – You value rapid UI customization and extensibility | – You prefer centralized support and uniform policies |
Final Thoughts
Both Koha and Evergreen are excellent choices depending on your library’s size, structure, and technical needs. Koha shines in its flexibility, usability, and global support ecosystem, while Evergreen offers unmatched stability and scalability for large networks and consortia. Evaluating your long-term goals, staff resources, and integration needs will help determine which system aligns best with your operations.