LubeLoggervsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| LubeLogger | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 65/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #2 of 5 in Vehicle Management | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 2 926 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +69 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 17 | 6 |
| Latest release | v1.7.4 · 14 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | JavaScript | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 65/100 for LubeLogger, so it is the safer default.
LubeLogger ships more often: 17 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, LubeLogger is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
LubeLogger details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep LubeLogger, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with