Pi-holevsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Pi-hole | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 87/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 of 41 in DNS | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 61 546 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +484 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 6 | 6 |
| Latest release | v6.5 · 17 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Other | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Shell | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Pi-hole scores 87/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.
If you want the quickest setup, Pi-hole is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Pi-hole is growing faster right now (+484 stars in 30 days).
Pi-hole details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep Pi-hole, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with