# ChronoFrame vs opencut

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

| | ChronoFrame | opencut |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 | 75/100 ✓ |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #2 of 12 in Video |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 | 96 664 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | +6 109 ✓ |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 | 4 ✓ |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 ✓ | ffmpeg-8.1.3-1 · 24 Sept 2026 |
| Setup | Easy ✓ | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes ✓ | No |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Typescript | Typescript |

## Which one should you pick?

opencut scores 75/100 against 63/100 for ChronoFrame, so it is the safer default.

opencut ships more often: 4 stable releases in the past year, against 3 for ChronoFrame.

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

opencut is growing faster right now (+6 109 stars in 30 days).

## Details

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

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