# ChronoFrame vs SyncTube

> Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.

| | ChronoFrame | SyncTube |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 ✓ | 51/100 |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #16 of 36 in Video Streaming |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 ✓ | 395 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | — |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 ✓ | 0 |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 | — |
| Setup | Easy ✓ | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes ✓ | No |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Typescript | Haxe |

## Which one should you pick?

ChronoFrame scores 63/100 against 51/100 for SyncTube, so it is the safer default.

ChronoFrame ships more often: 3 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for SyncTube.

If you want the quickest setup, ChronoFrame is easier to run; SyncTube needs more configuration.

ChronoFrame is growing faster right now (+32 stars in 30 days).

## Details

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

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