DeepSeek HarnessvsQFieldCloud
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| DeepSeek Harness | QFieldCloud | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 87/100 | 54/100 |
| Rank in category | #3 of 209 in AI Agents | #4 of 9 in Mapping & GPS |
| GitHub stars | 264 775 | 246 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +8 783 | — |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 0 | 10 |
| Latest release | — | v26.29 · 23 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | No | No |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Main language | Typescript | Python |
Which one should you pick?
DeepSeek Harness scores 87/100 against 54/100 for QFieldCloud, so it is the safer default.
QFieldCloud ships more often: 10 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for DeepSeek Harness.
If you want the quickest setup, DeepSeek Harness is easier to run; QFieldCloud needs more configuration.
DeepSeek Harness is growing faster right now (+8 783 stars in 30 days).
DeepSeek Harness details →QFieldCloud details →