# ChronoFrame vs tapflow

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

| | ChronoFrame | tapflow |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 ✓ | 55/100 |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #4 of 10 in Testing |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 ✓ | 1 377 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 ✓ | +7 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 | 10 ✓ |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 | v0.30.0 · 27 Oct 2026 ✓ |
| Setup | Easy ✓ | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Typescript | Typescript |

## Which one should you pick?

ChronoFrame scores 63/100 against 55/100 for tapflow, so it is the safer default.

tapflow ships more often: 10 stable releases in the past year, against 3 for ChronoFrame.

If you want the quickest setup, ChronoFrame is easier to run; tapflow 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)
- [tapflow](https://selfhost.directory/project/tapflow) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/tapflow.md)

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