# automatic-ripping-machine vs Tube 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.

## Details

- [automatic-ripping-machine](https://selfhost.directory/project/automatic-ripping-machine) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/automatic-ripping-machine.md)
- [Tube Archivist](https://selfhost.directory/project/tube-archivist) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/tube-archivist.md)

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