# automatic-ripping-machine vs Fish Speech

> Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.

| | automatic-ripping-machine | Fish Speech |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 67/100 | 73/100 ✓ |
| Rank in category | #10 of 142 in Media Management | #3 of 9 in Text to Speech |
| GitHub stars | 5 392 | 33 464 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | +148 ✓ | +141 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 16 ✓ | 0 |
| Latest release | 2.24.4 · 3 Oct 2026 | — |
| Setup | Moderate ✓ | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | Other |
| Main language | Python | Python |

## Which one should you pick?

Fish Speech scores 73/100 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 0 for Fish Speech.

If you want the quickest setup, automatic-ripping-machine is easier to run; Fish Speech needs more configuration.

## Details

- [automatic-ripping-machine](https://selfhost.directory/project/automatic-ripping-machine) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/automatic-ripping-machine.md)
- [Fish Speech](https://selfhost.directory/project/fish-speech) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/fish-speech.md)

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