ChronoFramevsracktables
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| ChronoFrame | racktables | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 | 47/100 |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #16 of 19 in Infrastructure Monitoring |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 | 813 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | +0 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 | 0 |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 | — |
| Setup | Easy | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | No |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | GPL-2.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | PHP |
Which one should you pick?
ChronoFrame scores 63/100 against 47/100 for racktables, so it is the safer default.
ChronoFrame ships more often: 3 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for racktables.
If you want the quickest setup, ChronoFrame is easier to run; racktables needs more configuration.
ChronoFrame is growing faster right now (+32 stars in 30 days).
ChronoFrame details →racktables details →
Swap a project
Keep ChronoFrame, compare it with
Keep racktables, compare it with