librarrvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| librarr | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 50/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #8 of 12 in Book Management | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 295 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +0 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 13 | 6 |
| Latest release | v1.4.1 · 21 Sept 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Go | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 50/100 for librarr, so it is the safer default.
librarr ships more often: 13 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, librarr is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+83 stars in 30 days).
librarr details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep librarr, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with