# automatic-ripping-machine vs Concat

> 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).

## Details

- [automatic-ripping-machine](https://selfhost.directory/project/automatic-ripping-machine) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/automatic-ripping-machine.md)
- [Concat](https://selfhost.directory/project/concat) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/concat.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/automatic-ripping-machine-vs-concat