# deceptifeed vs docker-pi-hole

> Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.

| | deceptifeed | docker-pi-hole |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 43/100 | 77/100 ✓ |
| Rank in category | #59 of 78 in Security | #3 of 41 in DNS |
| GitHub stars | 140 | 11 727 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | — | +114 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 5 | 12 ✓ |
| Latest release | v0.69.0 · 14 Jul 2026 | 2026.10.0 · 17 Oct 2026 ✓ |
| Setup | Moderate | Easy ✓ |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | Other |
| Main language | Go | Shell |

## Which one should you pick?

docker-pi-hole scores 77/100 against 43/100 for deceptifeed, so it is the safer default.

docker-pi-hole ships more often: 12 stable releases in the past year, against 5 for deceptifeed.

If you want the quickest setup, docker-pi-hole is easier to run; deceptifeed needs more configuration.

docker-pi-hole is growing faster right now (+114 stars in 30 days).

## Details

- [deceptifeed](https://selfhost.directory/project/deceptifeed) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/deceptifeed.md)
- [docker-pi-hole](https://selfhost.directory/project/docker-pi-hole) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/docker-pi-hole.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/deceptifeed-vs-docker-pi-hole