QFieldCloudvsReactive Resume
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| QFieldCloud | Reactive Resume | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 54/100 | 87/100 |
| Rank in category | #4 of 9 in Mapping & GPS | #1 of 46 in Document Management |
| GitHub stars | 246 | 45 040 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +0 | +1 639 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 10 | 35 |
| Latest release | v26.29 · 23 Oct 2026 | v6.0.8 · 29 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Advanced | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | No | Yes |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Main language | Python | Typescript |
Which one should you pick?
Reactive Resume scores 87/100 against 54/100 for QFieldCloud, so it is the safer default.
Reactive Resume ships more often: 35 stable releases in the past year, against 10 for QFieldCloud.
If you want the quickest setup, Reactive Resume is easier to run; QFieldCloud needs more configuration.
Reactive Resume is growing faster right now (+1 639 stars in 30 days).
QFieldCloud details →Reactive Resume details →
Swap a project
Keep QFieldCloud, compare it with
Keep Reactive Resume, compare it with