# copyparty vs Tube 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 | 47 175 ✓ | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +392 ✓ | +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 (+392 stars in 30 days).

## Details

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

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