# Harbor vs Tube Archivist

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

| | Harbor | Tube Archivist |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 80/100 ✓ | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 of 12 in Container Registry | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 29 641 ✓ | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +187 ✓ | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 10 ✓ | 6 |
| Latest release | v2.14.6 · 23 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 ✓ |
| Setup | Moderate ✓ | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | No | Yes ✓ |
| License | Apache-2.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Go | Python |

## Which one should you pick?

Harbor scores 80/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.

Harbor ships more often: 10 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.

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

Harbor is growing faster right now (+187 stars in 30 days).

## Details

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

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