# HiClaw vs Tube 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 | 5 891 | 8 552 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | +222 ✓ | +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 (+222 stars in 30 days).

## Details

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

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