Comparison

Looking for a Quackback alternative? Here is the honest version.

A hosted Quackback alternative: the same built-in MCP server for AI agents, plus automatic stack traces on bug reports, with nothing to self-host.
Start freeNo credit card required.
Quackback
Open source, self-hosted
UserWants
One plan, hosted

What they are

Quackback in one sentence

An open-source feedback management platform positioned against Canny, UserVoice and Productboard, with a built-in MCP server giving AI agents read-write access to feedback.

Straight answer

Where each one wins

Pick Quackback for

  • Open source and self-hostable

    The whole platform is yours to run and modify, which UserWants is not.

  • A full feedback board with voting

    Public boards, upvotes and roadmap views — the Canny-style workflow that UserWants deliberately removed.

  • No subscription

    Free at the licence level if you are willing to host it.

Pick UserWants for

  • Bug reports carry real diagnostics

    Quackback is built around feedback management. UserWants captures up to 10 JavaScript errors with stack frames and the last 50 user actions on every bug report, automatically.

  • Nothing to operate

    No server, database or object storage to run, patch or back up.

  • One widget for ideas and bugs

    The same button handles both, and bugs get the diagnostics while ideas get the status workflow.

Side by side

Feature comparison

FeatureUserWantsQuackback
HostingHosted for youSelf-host
LicenceCommercialOpen source
Public board with votingNoYes
Roadmap and changelogNoYes
JavaScript errors + stack tracesUp to 10, automaticNo
Steps before the reportLast 50, automaticNo
Screenshot with the reportYesVaries
MCP for coding agentsYes, OAuth, 3 toolsYes
Ops burdenNoneYours
PricingFlat subscriptionFree plus hosting

Verdict

Which one to pick

Quackback is a Canny replacement that happens to speak MCP; UserWants is a bug reporting widget that happens to collect ideas. If your problem is managing a public roadmap with votes and a changelog, Quackback does that and UserWants flatly does not. If your problem is that bug reports arrive with no evidence in them, Quackback will not fix it and this will.

UserWants is for

Teams whose main pain is unusable bug reports

Quackback is for

Teams who want an open-source public roadmap with voting

FAQ

Before you switch

Does UserWants have a public voting board?
No. Votes and the public roadmap were removed from the product. What remains is a private inbox with five statuses and an email to the reporter when one changes, which is a different workflow rather than a smaller version of the same one.
Which is better for bug reports specifically?
UserWants, clearly. Quackback manages feedback well but does not capture JavaScript errors, stack frames or the user’s last actions, so a bug report there is whatever the person managed to type. Here the evidence is attached before they finish the sentence.
Can I run Quackback and UserWants together?
Yes, and it is a reasonable split: Quackback for the public roadmap and voting, UserWants as the bug button on the product itself. They share no data, so you would be running two inboxes deliberately.

Try it beside Quackback.

Paste the tag on the same site and run both for a sprint. The reports arrive in parallel and nothing about your current setup changes.