x64dbg
2026.05.27 open-sourceThe section your link pointed to isn't on x64dbg's page any more, so we've brought you to the top.
x64dbg is an open-source binary debugger for Windows, aimed at malware analysis and reverse engineering of executables you do not have the source code for.
Summary
x64dbg is an open-source binary debugger for Windows, free to use, distributed as a desktop application you download and run directly rather than install as a service. It targets malware analysts and reverse engineers working on executables without source code, letting them step through disassembly, set breakpoints, inspect memory and registers, and script automation through a plugin system. Recent work adds struct-view type inspection, intermodular call search in trace recordings, and early Linux debugger support via ptrace, alongside accessibility improvements for screen readers. First committed in 2013 and still active, with 190 contributors and nearly 300 commits in the past year, it shows no sign of stalling.
x64dbg is an open-source binary debugger for Windows, aimed at malware analysis and reverse engineering of executables you do not have the source code for.
How x64dbg helps
What is this unknown executable actually doing when it runs?
steps through the live disassembly instruction by instruction, with breakpoints, register and memory views updated at each stop, so behavior hidden from static reading becomes visible at runtime
Which API calls does this sample make, and where do they come from across loaded modules?
searches trace recordings for intermodular calls with a dedicated module name column, pinpointing exactly where in the code an external routine gets invoked
Did this thread already run through the code I care about, or is it still in library startup?
provides a run-to-user-code step that skips ahead past non-user modules, landing execution at the first instruction that belongs to the analyzed binary
Which instructions actually executed, and in what order, during a suspicious run?
records an execution trace that can be filtered at the module level, so noise from unrelated modules can be excluded when reconstructing what happened
Can I tell whether a saved memory breakpoint or trace file came from a compatible version before trusting it?
stores traces and blocks in an extended root JSON structure with user-defined blocks, so old and new trace files can be distinguished when loaded back in
Languages
Command line
| option | found in | since | description |
|---|
Values are placeholders taken from each option’s declared default. Nothing is executed here — the output shown is a recording of a run that already happened.
Score card
-
Shipping velocity releases a month, last 12 months
-
Documentation quality release-notes rubric, 0–100
-
Breaking-change discipline how rarely a release breaks users, and notice given
-
Maintenance risk quiet time against its own cadence, maintainers
-
Innovation & surface new capabilities, API and MCP surface
- Community health
-
Contributor trend distinct committers, this year against last
-
Maintainer concentration bus factor now against a year ago
-
Issue backlog trend issues closed per issue opened, 12 months
-
Responsiveness median time to a maintainer’s first reply
Nine scores for x64dbg, each built from the releases, notes and API history this site tracks — and, on Researcher and Business, where it stands among every measured tool in its category and how that has moved.
Score cards are part of every paid plan.
See plans → Already subscribed? Sign in →Trajectory
Blank means never measured; nothing here is a filled-in zero.
Peer standings are included with Researcher and Business. See how this tool ranks against its competitors, using data we don't publish anywhere else.
See plans →Each score is 0–100 on a published rubric, derived from data this site already shows. A dimension we cannot measure says so — it is never scored 0 and never enters a rank.
How this is scored
- Shipping velocity — releases a month over the last 12 months, on a log scale where 16 a month scores 100. Needs 3 releases in the window.
- Documentation quality — the release-notes rubric published on the analytics page, unchanged.
- Breaking-change discipline — the share of releases carrying a breaking change (none scores 100, half or more scores 0). Only projects that label breaking changes are measured: a clean record cannot be told from an unlabelled one.
- Maintenance risk — quiet time measured against the tool's own release cadence (quiet longer than 90 days and three typical gaps scores 0), plus the number of active maintainers and whether contributors are growing, where known. Higher is lower risk.
- Innovation & surface — new capabilities in the feature ledger this year, API and MCP operations added, and the share of commits that are features: the mean of whichever we hold.
- Community health (open-source tools only) — each is a direction, not a size: contributors this year against last, the bus factor now against a year ago, and issues closed per issue opened, where steady scores 50, doubled 100 and halved 0; plus the median time to a maintainer's first reply (an hour scores about 100, a month or more 0). A commercial card has no repository and carries none of the four.
- Documented delivery (commercial tools) — when a vendor's documented new capabilities have slowed against its own baseline, that counts against the overall standing as heavily as two low dimensions. Steady delivery, or too little history to judge, leaves the standing alone; it is never a sixth score.
- Open-source tools are scored on repository signals; commercial tools on their published changelog. Ranks compare tools within one category and one profile and need at least five measured peers; the overall standing needs three ranked dimensions. Best-in-breed or consolidator is a shape, not a quality, and is never scored.
Release-note detail over time
See how much detail x64dbg puts in its release notes, quarter by quarter, and compare it with tracked tools in the same category. This history uses up to ten retained, reviewed notes per tool; sparse or blank older quarters may reflect that limit.
Checking release-note history…
Releases
4 entries
No entries match these filters.
- May 20261
- April 20261
- August 20251
- June 20251
Project health
Issue, contributor and maintainer activity in x64dbg/x64dbg, 2023-10 – 2026-09, as of 2026-09-25. Twelve-month figures first; the trend lines run the whole window.
- Contributors 29 +10 vs prior 12 months
- Maintainers 3 +2 joined · −2 left, last 12 months
- Bus factor 2 committers behind half the commits
- Community-filed 93% of issues opened, last 12 months
- Median time to close 68 days first maintainer reply 6.7 hours
- Open backlog 571 of 2,725 issues ever filed
- Issues opened / month 1 · 1 communitymaintainers
- Open backlog 571
- Contributors / month 5
- Commits / month 46
- Stars 49,567
- bugs 49%
- features 27%
- other 24%
Counts from the project's public repository and git history; no individuals are identified. Maintainers are the committers covering 80% of the last year's commits. how we measure this
Libraries its release ships
What its latest release locks, checked against known advisories.None of its release's images build from a lockfile we can read.
Add the badge to your README
Maintain this project? The badge links readers straight to this page, so they can follow every release here.