# Pulse vs Tube Archivist

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

| | Pulse | Tube Archivist |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 71/100 | 72/100 ✓ |
| Rank in category | #2 of 19 in Infrastructure Monitoring | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 6 977 | 8 552 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | +233 ✓ | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 43 ✓ | 6 |
| Latest release | helm-chart-6.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 ✓ | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy ✓ | 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 71/100 for Pulse, so it is the safer default.

Pulse ships more often: 43 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.

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

Pulse is growing faster right now (+233 stars in 30 days).

## Details

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

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