# gitbucket vs Tube Archivist

> Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.

| | gitbucket | Tube Archivist |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 68/100 | 72/100 ✓ |
| Rank in category | #5 of 14 in Code Hosting | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 9 418 ✓ | 8 553 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +14 | +84 ✓ |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 6 | 6 |
| Latest release | 4.48.0 · 20 Sept 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 ✓ |
| Setup | Easy ✓ | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Scala | Python |

## Which one should you pick?

Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 68/100 for gitbucket, so it is the safer default.

If you want the quickest setup, gitbucket is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.

Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+84 stars in 30 days).

## Details

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

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