ByteStashvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| ByteStash | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 60/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #41 of 166 in Developer Tools | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 2 569 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 6 | 6 |
| Latest release | v1.6.0 · 16 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | GPL-3.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 60/100 for ByteStash, so it is the safer default.
If you want the quickest setup, ByteStash is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+83 stars in 30 days).
ByteStash details →Tube Archivist details →