CloakBrowservsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| CloakBrowser | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 75/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #2 of 11 in Browser Automation | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 32 572 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +214 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 5 | 6 |
| Latest release | chromium-v155.0.8059.39.2-pro · 27 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Python | Python |
Which one should you pick?
CloakBrowser scores 75/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.
Tube Archivist ships more often: 6 stable releases in the past year, against 5 for CloakBrowser.
If you want the quickest setup, CloakBrowser is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
CloakBrowser is growing faster right now (+214 stars in 30 days).
CloakBrowser details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep CloakBrowser, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with