copypartyvsurl-to-png
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| copyparty | url-to-png | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 82/100 | 49/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 of 86 in File Sharing | #13 of 16 in Web Scraping |
| GitHub stars | 47 170 | 256 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +387 | +0 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 19 | 2 |
| Latest release | v1.20.26 · 14 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?
copyparty scores 82/100 against 49/100 for url-to-png, so it is the safer default.
copyparty ships more often: 19 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; copyparty needs more configuration.
copyparty is growing faster right now (+387 stars in 30 days).
copyparty details →url-to-png details →
Swap a project
Keep copyparty, compare it with
Keep url-to-png, compare it with