# Concat vs Tube 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).

## Details

- [Concat](https://selfhost.directory/project/concat) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/concat.md)
- [Tube Archivist](https://selfhost.directory/project/tube-archivist) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/tube-archivist.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/concat-vs-tube-archivist