# ChronoFrame vs transfer.sh

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

| | ChronoFrame | transfer.sh |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 | 69/100 ✓ |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #9 of 86 in File Sharing |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 | 15 908 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 ✓ | +11 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 ✓ | 0 |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 | — |
| Setup | Easy | Easy |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Typescript | Go |

## Which one should you pick?

transfer.sh scores 69/100 against 63/100 for ChronoFrame, so it is the safer default.

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

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)
- [transfer.sh](https://selfhost.directory/project/transfersh) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/transfersh.md)

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