HiClawvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| HiClaw | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 67/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #31 of 209 in AI Agents | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 5 890 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +221 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 15 | 6 |
| Latest release | v1.2.5 · 16 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Go | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 67/100 for HiClaw, so it is the safer default.
HiClaw ships more often: 15 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, HiClaw is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
HiClaw is growing faster right now (+221 stars in 30 days).
HiClaw details →Tube Archivist details →