ChronoFramevsRustFS
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| ChronoFrame | RustFS | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 | 74/100 |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #1 of 5 in Storage |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 | 35 504 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | +1 772 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 | 5 |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 | 1.0.4 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | No |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Rust |
Which one should you pick?
RustFS scores 74/100 against 63/100 for ChronoFrame, so it is the safer default.
RustFS 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; RustFS needs more configuration.
RustFS is growing faster right now (+1 772 stars in 30 days).
ChronoFrame details →RustFS details →
Swap a project
Keep ChronoFrame, compare it with
Keep RustFS, compare it with