Both Koha and Evergreen are mature, feature-rich open-source integrated library systems (ILS) used by thousands of libraries worldwide. Choosing between them can be challenging since both offer excellent functionality without license fees. This comparison helps you determine which system best fits your library’s needs.

Quick Comparison Table

Feature Koha Evergreen
First Released 1999 2006
Primary Developer Koha Community (global) Equinox, MOBIUS, others
Best For All library types, international Public library consortia
Programming Language Perl Perl, JavaScript (Angular)
Database MySQL/MariaDB PostgreSQL
Staff Interface Web-based (modern) Web-based + legacy
OPAC Responsive, customizable Highly customizable
Consortial Support Good Excellent
Installation Complexity Moderate Higher
Community Size Larger, global Smaller, North America-focused
Documentation Extensive Good
Mobile App Third-party options Native circulation app
Cost Free (hosting/support optional) Free (hosting/support optional)

Origins and Development

Koha

  • Founded: 1999 in New Zealand
  • First: World’s first open-source ILS
  • Community: Global development community across 6 continents
  • Governance: Community-driven with release manager rotation
  • Funding Model: Volunteer developers + commercial support companies

Evergreen

  • Founded: 2006 by Georgia PINES consortium
  • Purpose: Built specifically for large multi-branch library systems
  • Community: Primarily North American public libraries
  • Governance: Equinox Software leads development, community input
  • Funding Model: Consortium funding + commercial support

Core Features Comparison

Cataloging

Koha:

  • MARC21, UNIMARC, NORMARC support
  • Z39.50 client built-in
  • Authority control integrated
  • Fast cataloging interface
  • Flexible MARC frameworks
  • Easy-to-use item editor

Evergreen:

  • MARC21, MARC XML support
  • Z39.50 client
  • Authority control
  • Copy cataloging optimized for consortia
  • Bucket system for batch operations
  • Strong overlay/merge capabilities

Winner: Tie - Both excellent for cataloging

Circulation

Koha:

  • Flexible circulation rules (complex matrix)
  • Holds (item-level, bib-level, record-level)
  • Offline circulation plugin
  • Self-checkout compatible (SIP2)
  • Automatic renewals
  • Claims returned tracking

Evergreen:

  • Highly granular circulation policies
  • Strong holds management
  • Offline circulation (native)
  • Robust SIP2 implementation
  • Excellent fine/fee handling
  • Pre-cataloged circulation

Winner: Evergreen - Slightly more robust for high-volume circ

OPAC (Public Catalog)

Koha:

  • Responsive Bootstrap-based design
  • Mobile-friendly out of box
  • Faceted search
  • Patron tagging, reviews, ratings
  • Reading history
  • Lists (public and private)
  • Easy to customize with CSS/JavaScript

Evergreen:

  • Modern “Tpac” interface
  • Highly customizable
  • Faceted browse
  • Recent catalog additions
  • User-contributed content
  • Cart and list features
  • “Jacket large” view

Winner: Koha - More modern, easier to customize

Serials Management

Koha:

  • Comprehensive serials module
  • Subscription management
  • Routing lists
  • Claims for late issues
  • Prediction patterns
  • Integration with catalog

Evergreen:

  • Basic serials support
  • Pattern-based predictions
  • Simpler than Koha
  • Less feature-rich

Winner: Koha - Significantly stronger serials module

Acquisitions

Koha:

  • Full EDI support
  • Budgets and funds
  • Vendor management
  • Order baskets
  • Receiving and invoicing
  • Claims for late orders
  • Extensive reporting

Evergreen:

  • Selection lists
  • Purchase orders
  • Fund tracking
  • Vendor records
  • EDI support (some vendors)
  • Invoice processing

Winner: Koha - More mature acquisitions module

Reporting

Koha:

  • SQL-based report writer
  • Guided report wizard
  • Saved reports library
  • Scheduled reports
  • Report sharing across community
  • Statistics wizards
  • Export to CSV, PDF

Evergreen:

  • Reporter interface (complex but powerful)
  • Template-based reports
  • Scheduled reports
  • Custom SQL queries
  • Export options
  • Learning curve steeper

Winner: Koha - More user-friendly reporting

Consortial Features

Koha:

  • Multi-branch support
  • Resource sharing
  • Holds across branches
  • Separate OPACs per library (if needed)
  • Independent circulation rules
  • Centralized or distributed cataloging

Evergreen:

  • Built for consortia
  • Hierarchical org units
  • Sophisticated holds targeting
  • Load balancing across branches
  • Shared catalog with local collections
  • Staff permissions by org unit

Winner: Evergreen - Purpose-built for consortia

Technical Considerations

System Requirements

Koha:

  • OS: Linux (Debian/Ubuntu recommended)
  • Database: MySQL or MariaDB
  • Web Server: Apache2
  • Perl: 5.10+
  • Memory: 4GB minimum, 8GB+ recommended

Evergreen:

  • OS: Linux (Ubuntu, Debian)
  • Database: PostgreSQL
  • Web Server: Apache2
  • Languages: Perl, JavaScript (Angular for some modules)
  • Memory: 8GB minimum for production

Complexity: Koha is generally easier to install and maintain.

Customization

Koha:

  • Template Toolkit for interface customization
  • jQuery for OPAC enhancements
  • IntranetUserCSS/OPACUserCSS for styling
  • JavaScript in system preferences
  • Plugin system for extending functionality

Evergreen:

  • Template Toolkit templates
  • Dojo/Angular frameworks
  • Custom CSS via skins
  • Requires more technical knowledge
  • Strong API for integrations

Mobile Support

Koha:

  • Responsive OPAC works on all devices
  • Third-party apps (Bywater’s Mobile App, others)
  • Mobile-optimized staff interface (in development)

Evergreen:

  • Tpac OPAC responsive
  • Native circulation app (Android/iOS)
  • Mobile staff interface available

Winner: Evergreen - Native mobile circulation app

Community and Support

Koha

Community:

  • Larger global community
  • Active mailing lists
  • Annual KohaCon conferences
  • IRC channels
  • Wiki and extensive documentation

Commercial Support:

  • ByWater Solutions (U.S.)
  • PTFS Europe (UK/Europe)
  • Catalyst IT (New Zealand/Pacific)
  • Theke Solutions (Global)
  • KohaSupport (U.S., AWS specialist)

Winner: Larger community, more support vendors worldwide

Evergreen

Community:

  • Focused primarily in North America
  • Active mailing lists
  • Annual conference
  • IRC and Slack channels
  • Documentation wiki

Commercial Support:

  • Equinox Software (lead developer)
  • MOBIUS
  • BC Libraries Cooperative (Canada)
  • Bibliomation (Connecticut)

Winner: Smaller but very dedicated community

Use Cases and Recommendations

Choose Koha if:

✅ You’re a school, academic, special, or smaller public library
✅ You need strong serials and acquisitions modules
✅ You want easier installation and maintenance
✅ You prefer more frequent updates (quarterly releases)
✅ You need international support (time zones, languages)
✅ You want AWS cloud hosting options
✅ You value extensive plugin ecosystem

Choose Evergreen if:

✅ You’re a large public library consortium
✅ You need sophisticated resource sharing across branches
✅ You prioritize circulation speed and efficiency
✅ You have technical staff comfortable with complex systems
✅ You’re in North America (better local support)
✅ You want a native mobile circulation app
✅ You need fine-grained circulation policies

Migration Considerations

Both systems provide migration tools for common ILS platforms:

Koha: Migration utilities for Symphony, Millennium, Horizon, CARLweb, etc. Evergreen: Migration scripts for Polaris, Symphony, Horizon, and others

Recommendation: Engage professional services for smoother migrations.

Cost Comparison

Both are free/open-source, but total cost of ownership includes:

Implementation Costs (similar for both):

  • Migration services: $5,000-$25,000+
  • Training: $2,000-$10,000
  • Hardware/hosting: $2,000-$10,000/year
  • Customization: Varies

Ongoing Costs:

  • Support contracts: $5,000-$30,000/year (depending on size)
  • Hosting (if cloud): $200-$2,000/month
  • Staff time for maintenance

Bottom Line: Comparable costs; Koha may be slightly cheaper for smaller libraries due to simpler administration.

Performance and Scalability

Koha:

  • Handles libraries from 1-100+ branches
  • Databases up to millions of records
  • Well-optimized for most use cases
  • Memcached support for speed

Evergreen:

  • Designed for very large systems (500+ branches)
  • Proven with 10+ million bibliographic records
  • Excellent performance at scale
  • More complex tuning required

Conclusion

There’s no definitively “better” system—both Koha and Evergreen are excellent open-source ILS platforms. Your choice should depend on your specific needs:

Koha is more versatile, easier to manage, and has a larger global community. It’s ideal for most libraries, especially those outside consortia.

Evergreen excels for large multi-branch public library systems needing sophisticated resource sharing and high-volume circulation.

Many libraries run Koha successfully; many run Evergreen successfully. Both communities are welcoming and supportive. Evaluate your requirements, involve stakeholders, and test both systems if possible before deciding.

Considering Koha for your library? We provide implementation, training, hosting, and support services. Contact us for a consultation.

Related Comparisons: