# CloakBrowser vs url-to-png

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

| | CloakBrowser | url-to-png |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 75/100 ✓ | 49/100 |
| Rank in category | #2 of 11 in Browser Automation | #13 of 16 in Web Scraping |
| GitHub stars | 32 557 ✓ | 256 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +199 | — |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 5 ✓ | 2 |
| Latest release | chromium-v155.0.8059.39.2-pro · 27 Oct 2026 ✓ | v2.1.4 · 18 Apr 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Easy ✓ |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Main language | Python | Typescript |

## Which one should you pick?

CloakBrowser scores 75/100 against 49/100 for url-to-png, so it is the safer default.

CloakBrowser ships more often: 5 stable releases in the past year, against 2 for url-to-png.

If you want the quickest setup, url-to-png is easier to run; CloakBrowser needs more configuration.

CloakBrowser is growing faster right now (+199 stars in 30 days).

## Details

- [CloakBrowser](https://selfhost.directory/project/cloakbrowser) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/cloakbrowser.md)
- [url-to-png](https://selfhost.directory/project/url-to-png) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/url-to-png.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/cloakbrowser-vs-url-to-png