automatic-ripping-machinevsReadMeABook
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| automatic-ripping-machine | ReadMeABook | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 67/100 | 64/100 |
| Rank in category | #10 of 142 in Media Management | #3 of 15 in Audiobook Management |
| GitHub stars | 5 389 | 1 033 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +148 | +65 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 16 | 21 |
| Latest release | 2.24.4 · 3 Oct 2026 | v1.2.12 · 27 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Python | Typescript |
Which one should you pick?
automatic-ripping-machine scores 67/100 against 64/100 for ReadMeABook, so it is the safer default.
ReadMeABook ships more often: 21 stable releases in the past year, against 16 for automatic-ripping-machine.
If you want the quickest setup, automatic-ripping-machine is easier to run; ReadMeABook needs more configuration.
automatic-ripping-machine is growing faster right now (+148 stars in 30 days).
automatic-ripping-machine details →ReadMeABook details →