# ClipForge vs Concat

> Two self-hosted [Video Processing projects](https://selfhost.directory/video-processing), 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).

## Details

- [ClipForge](https://selfhost.directory/project/clipforge) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/clipforge.md)
- [Concat](https://selfhost.directory/project/concat) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/concat.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/clipforge-vs-concat