# bookorbit vs QFieldCloud

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

| | bookorbit | QFieldCloud |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 74/100 ✓ | 54/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 of 12 in Book Management | #4 of 9 in Mapping & GPS |
| GitHub stars | 5 900 ✓ | 246 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +1 222 ✓ | +0 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 23 ✓ | 10 |
| Latest release | v3.6.0 · 27 Oct 2026 ✓ | v26.29 · 23 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy ✓ | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes ✓ | No |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Typescript | Python |

## Which one should you pick?

bookorbit scores 74/100 against 54/100 for QFieldCloud, so it is the safer default.

bookorbit ships more often: 23 stable releases in the past year, against 10 for QFieldCloud.

If you want the quickest setup, bookorbit is easier to run; QFieldCloud needs more configuration.

bookorbit is growing faster right now (+1 222 stars in 30 days).

## Details

- [bookorbit](https://selfhost.directory/project/bookorbit) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/bookorbit.md)
- [QFieldCloud](https://selfhost.directory/project/qfieldcloud) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/qfieldcloud.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/bookorbit-vs-qfieldcloud