# proxyscotch vs Tube Archivist

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

| | proxyscotch | Tube Archivist |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 44/100 | 72/100 ✓ |
| Rank in category | #10 of 13 in API | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 428 | 8 552 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | +0 | +83 ✓ |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 0 | 6 ✓ |
| Latest release | — | 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 44/100 for proxyscotch, so it is the safer default.

Tube Archivist ships more often: 6 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for proxyscotch.

If you want the quickest setup, proxyscotch is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.

Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+83 stars in 30 days).

## Details

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

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