# llama.cpp vs retroassembly

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

| | llama.cpp | retroassembly |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 93/100 ✓ | 56/100 |
| Rank in category | #2 of 25 in LLM Inference | #5 of 5 in Emulation |
| GitHub stars | 132 762 ✓ | 1 153 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +3 307 ✓ | +72 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 1469 ✓ | 3 |
| Latest release | b11985 · 29 Oct 2026 ✓ | v7.260719.1051 · 19 Jul 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Easy ✓ |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Main language | C++ | Typescript |

## Which one should you pick?

llama.cpp scores 93/100 against 56/100 for retroassembly, so it is the safer default.

llama.cpp ships more often: 1469 stable releases in the past year, against 3 for retroassembly.

If you want the quickest setup, retroassembly is easier to run; llama.cpp needs more configuration.

llama.cpp is growing faster right now (+3 307 stars in 30 days).

## Details

- [llama.cpp](https://selfhost.directory/project/llamacpp) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/llamacpp.md)
- [retroassembly](https://selfhost.directory/project/retroassembly) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/retroassembly.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/llamacpp-vs-retroassembly