ChronoFramevsReactive Resume
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| ChronoFrame | Reactive Resume | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 | 87/100 |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #1 of 46 in Document Management |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 | 45 023 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | +1 622 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 | 34 |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 | v6.0.7 · 26 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Typescript | Typescript |
Which one should you pick?
Reactive Resume scores 87/100 against 63/100 for ChronoFrame, so it is the safer default.
Reactive Resume ships more often: 34 stable releases in the past year, against 3 for ChronoFrame.
If you want the quickest setup, ChronoFrame is easier to run; Reactive Resume needs more configuration.
Reactive Resume is growing faster right now (+1 622 stars in 30 days).
ChronoFrame details →Reactive Resume details →
Swap a project
Keep ChronoFrame, compare it with
Keep Reactive Resume, compare it with