apitablevsqm-music
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| apitable | qm-music | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 65/100 | 51/100 |
| Rank in category | #4 of 17 in Low Code | #20 of 59 in Music Streaming |
| GitHub stars | 15 654 | 589 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +35 | +1 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 0 | 11 |
| Latest release | — | v2.5.0 · 10 Sept 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Easy |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Java |
Which one should you pick?
apitable scores 65/100 against 51/100 for qm-music, so it is the safer default.
qm-music ships more often: 11 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for apitable.
If you want the quickest setup, qm-music is easier to run; apitable needs more configuration.
apitable is growing faster right now (+35 stars in 30 days).
apitable details →qm-music details →