ChronoFramevsMularr
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| ChronoFrame | Mularr | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 | 45/100 |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #2 of 2 in P2P |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 | 179 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | — |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 | 10 |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 | v1.0.0 · 7 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Typescript | Typescript |
Which one should you pick?
ChronoFrame scores 63/100 against 45/100 for Mularr, so it is the safer default.
Mularr ships more often: 10 stable releases in the past year, against 3 for ChronoFrame.
If you want the quickest setup, ChronoFrame is easier to run; Mularr needs more configuration.
ChronoFrame is growing faster right now (+32 stars in 30 days).
ChronoFrame details →Mularr details →
Swap a project
Keep ChronoFrame, compare it with
Keep Mularr, compare it with