# ChronoFrame vs OctoBot

> Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.

| | ChronoFrame | OctoBot |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 | 69/100 ✓ |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #6 of 42 in Cryptocurrency |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 | 6 873 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | +258 ✓ |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 | 5 ✓ |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 ✓ | 2.1.1 · 30 Mar 2026 |
| Setup | Easy ✓ | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Python |

## Which one should you pick?

OctoBot scores 69/100 against 63/100 for ChronoFrame, so it is the safer default.

OctoBot ships more often: 5 stable releases in the past year, against 3 for ChronoFrame.

If you want the quickest setup, ChronoFrame is easier to run; OctoBot needs more configuration.

OctoBot is growing faster right now (+258 stars in 30 days).

## Details

- [ChronoFrame](https://selfhost.directory/project/chronoframe) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/chronoframe.md)
- [OctoBot](https://selfhost.directory/project/octobot) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/octobot.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/chronoframe-vs-octobot