ChronoFramevsOpencast
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| ChronoFrame | Opencast | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 | 57/100 |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #37 of 142 in Media Management |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 | 509 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | — |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 | 11 |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 | 19.10 · 28 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | No |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | ECL-2.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Java |
Which one should you pick?
ChronoFrame scores 63/100 against 57/100 for Opencast, so it is the safer default.
Opencast ships more often: 11 stable releases in the past year, against 3 for ChronoFrame.
If you want the quickest setup, ChronoFrame is easier to run; Opencast needs more configuration.
ChronoFrame is growing faster right now (+32 stars in 30 days).
ChronoFrame details →Opencast details →
Swap a project
Keep ChronoFrame, compare it with
Keep Opencast, compare it with