bookorbitvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| bookorbit | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 74/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 of 12 in Book Management | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 5 900 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +1 222 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 23 | 6 |
| Latest release | v3.6.0 · 27 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Python |
Which one should you pick?
bookorbit scores 74/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.
bookorbit ships more often: 23 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, bookorbit is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
bookorbit is growing faster right now (+1 222 stars in 30 days).
bookorbit details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep bookorbit, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with