automatic-ripping-machinevsStash
Two self-hosted Media Management projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| automatic-ripping-machine | Stash | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 67/100 | 78/100 |
| Rank in category | #10 of 142 in Media Management | #2 of 142 in Media Management |
| GitHub stars | 5 391 | 13 309 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +147 | +299 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 16 | 7 |
| Latest release | 2.24.4 · 3 Oct 2026 | latest_develop · 24 Jun 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Easy |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Python | Go |
Which one should you pick?
Stash scores 78/100 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 7 for Stash.
If you want the quickest setup, Stash is easier to run; automatic-ripping-machine needs more configuration.
Stash is growing faster right now (+299 stars in 30 days).
automatic-ripping-machine details →Stash details →All Media Management projects →