# Ghost vs Tube 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 | 55 631 ✓ | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +207 ✓ | +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 (+207 stars in 30 days).

## Details

- [Ghost](https://selfhost.directory/project/ghost) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/ghost.md)
- [Tube Archivist](https://selfhost.directory/project/tube-archivist) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/tube-archivist.md)

## Related comparisons

- [Ghost vs Payload CMS](https://selfhost.directory/compare/ghost-vs-payload-cms)
- [directus vs Ghost](https://selfhost.directory/compare/directus-vs-ghost)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/ghost-vs-tube-archivist