ChronoFramevsspotify-saver
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| ChronoFrame | spotify-saver | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 | 44/100 |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #35 of 59 in Music Streaming |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 | 169 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | +0 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 | 4 |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 | 0.7.5 · 23 Nov 2025 |
| Setup | Easy | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Typescript | Python |
Which one should you pick?
ChronoFrame scores 63/100 against 44/100 for spotify-saver, so it is the safer default.
spotify-saver ships more often: 4 stable releases in the past year, against 3 for ChronoFrame.
If you want the quickest setup, ChronoFrame is easier to run; spotify-saver needs more configuration.
ChronoFrame is growing faster right now (+32 stars in 30 days).
ChronoFrame details →spotify-saver details →
Swap a project
Keep ChronoFrame, compare it with
Keep spotify-saver, compare it with