automatic-ripping-machinevsConcat
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| automatic-ripping-machine | Concat | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 67/100 | 82/100 |
| Rank in category | #10 of 142 in Media Management | #1 of 18 in Video Processing |
| GitHub stars | 5 389 | 12 374 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +148 | +2 375 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 16 | 6 |
| Latest release | 2.24.4 · 3 Oct 2026 | v0.2.8 · 20 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Easy |
| Official Docker image | Yes | No |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Python | Rust |
Which one should you pick?
Concat scores 82/100 against 67/100 for automatic-ripping-machine, so it is the safer default.
automatic-ripping-machine ships more often: 16 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Concat.
If you want the quickest setup, Concat is easier to run; automatic-ripping-machine needs more configuration.
Concat is growing faster right now (+2 375 stars in 30 days).
automatic-ripping-machine details →Concat details →