e2bvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| e2b | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 76/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #15 of 209 in AI Agents | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 14 603 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +645 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 76 | 6 |
| Latest release | @e2b/code-interpreter-python@2.11.6 · 28 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Python | Python |
Which one should you pick?
e2b scores 76/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.
e2b ships more often: 76 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, e2b is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
e2b is growing faster right now (+645 stars in 30 days).
e2b details →Tube Archivist details →