ActivityWatchvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| ActivityWatch | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 80/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 of 11 in Time Tracking | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 19 418 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +442 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 13 | 6 |
| Latest release | v0.14.1 · 10 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | No | Yes |
| License | MPL-2.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Python | Python |
Which one should you pick?
ActivityWatch scores 80/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.
ActivityWatch ships more often: 13 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, ActivityWatch is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
ActivityWatch is growing faster right now (+442 stars in 30 days).
ActivityWatch details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep ActivityWatch, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with