capjsvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| capjs | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 72/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #15 of 78 in Security | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 8 205 | 8 553 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +353 | +84 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 16 | 6 |
| Latest release | standalone@3.1.13 · 23 Sept 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Other | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | JavaScript | Python |
Which one should you pick?
capjs and Tube Archivist score the same (72/100), so the choice comes down to the details below.
capjs ships more often: 16 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, capjs is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
capjs is growing faster right now (+353 stars in 30 days).
capjs details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep capjs, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with