ClipForgevsConcat
Two self-hosted Video Processing projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| ClipForge | Concat | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 57/100 | 82/100 |
| Rank in category | #4 of 18 in Video Processing | #1 of 18 in Video Processing |
| GitHub stars | 1 117 | 12 374 |
| Stars, last 30 days | — | +2 375 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 9 | 6 |
| Latest release | v0.9.12 · 26 Oct 2026 | v0.2.8 · 20 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Easy |
| Official Docker image | Yes | No |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Rust |
Which one should you pick?
Concat scores 82/100 against 57/100 for ClipForge, so it is the safer default.
ClipForge ships more often: 9 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Concat.
If you want the quickest setup, Concat is easier to run; ClipForge needs more configuration.
Concat is growing faster right now (+2 375 stars in 30 days).
ClipForge details →Concat details →All Video Processing projects →
Swap a project
Keep ClipForge, compare it with
Keep Concat, compare it with