ChronoFramevsPulumi
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| ChronoFrame | Pulumi | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 | 78/100 |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #1 of 3 in Infrastructure |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 | 25 829 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | +30 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 | 5 |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 | v3.272.0 · 22 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Go |
Which one should you pick?
Pulumi scores 78/100 against 63/100 for ChronoFrame, so it is the safer default.
Pulumi 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; Pulumi needs more configuration.
ChronoFrame details →Pulumi details →
Swap a project
Keep ChronoFrame, compare it with
Keep Pulumi, compare it with