ChronoFramevsOctoprint
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| ChronoFrame | Octoprint | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 | 73/100 |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #1 of 22 in 3D Printing |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 | 9 167 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | +59 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 | 5 |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 | 1.11.8 · 23 Jun 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Octoprint scores 73/100 against 63/100 for ChronoFrame, so it is the safer default.
Octoprint 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; Octoprint needs more configuration.
ChronoFrame details →Octoprint details →
Swap a project
Keep ChronoFrame, compare it with
Keep Octoprint, compare it with