ChronoFramevswoodpecker-ci
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| ChronoFrame | woodpecker-ci | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 | 73/100 |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #5 of 28 in CI/CD |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 | 8 066 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | +158 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 | 11 |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 | v3.20.0 · 28 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Go |
Which one should you pick?
woodpecker-ci scores 73/100 against 63/100 for ChronoFrame, so it is the safer default.
woodpecker-ci ships more often: 11 stable releases in the past year, against 3 for ChronoFrame.
If you want the quickest setup, ChronoFrame is easier to run; woodpecker-ci needs more configuration.
woodpecker-ci is growing faster right now (+158 stars in 30 days).
ChronoFrame details →woodpecker-ci details →
Swap a project
Keep ChronoFrame, compare it with
Keep woodpecker-ci, compare it with