GhostvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Ghost | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 83/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 of 42 in Content Management | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 55 630 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +206 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 41 | 6 |
| Latest release | v6.73.0 · 27 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Ghost scores 83/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.
Ghost ships more often: 41 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, Ghost is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Ghost is growing faster right now (+206 stars in 30 days).
Ghost details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep Ghost, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with