ChronoFramevsNightingale
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| ChronoFrame | Nightingale | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 | 58/100 |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #15 of 54 in Media Streaming |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 | 1 522 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | — |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 | 9 |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 | v1.3.0 · 15 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Typescript |
Which one should you pick?
ChronoFrame scores 63/100 against 58/100 for Nightingale, so it is the safer default.
Nightingale ships more often: 9 stable releases in the past year, against 3 for ChronoFrame.
If you want the quickest setup, ChronoFrame is easier to run; Nightingale needs more configuration.
ChronoFrame is growing faster right now (+32 stars in 30 days).
ChronoFrame details →Nightingale details →
Swap a project
Keep ChronoFrame, compare it with
Keep Nightingale, compare it with