automatic-ripping-machinevsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| automatic-ripping-machine | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 67/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #10 of 142 in Media Management | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 5 392 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +148 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 16 | 6 |
| Latest release | 2.24.4 · 3 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Python | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 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 Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, automatic-ripping-machine is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
automatic-ripping-machine details →Tube Archivist details →