ConcatvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Concat | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 82/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 of 18 in Video Processing | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 12 525 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +2 526 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 6 | 6 |
| Latest release | v0.2.8 · 20 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | No | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Rust | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Concat scores 82/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.
If you want the quickest setup, Concat is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Concat is growing faster right now (+2 526 stars in 30 days).
Concat details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep Concat, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with