copypartyvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| copyparty | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 82/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 of 86 in File Sharing | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 47 170 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +387 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 19 | 6 |
| Latest release | v1.20.26 · 14 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?
copyparty scores 82/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.
copyparty ships more often: 19 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, copyparty is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
copyparty is growing faster right now (+387 stars in 30 days).
copyparty details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep copyparty, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with