# DeepSeek Harness vs QFieldCloud

> 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 | 265 139 ✓ | 246 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +9 147 ✓ | +0 |
| 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 (+9 147 stars in 30 days).

## Details

- [DeepSeek Harness](https://selfhost.directory/project/deepseek-harness) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/deepseek-harness.md)
- [QFieldCloud](https://selfhost.directory/project/qfieldcloud) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/qfieldcloud.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/deepseek-harness-vs-qfieldcloud