# ChronoFrame vs Opencast

> 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).

## Details

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

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