# ChronoFrame vs RustFS

> 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 | 35 507 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | +1 675 ✓ |
| 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 (+1 675 stars in 30 days).

## Details

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

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