qm-musicvsSeaweedFS
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| qm-music | SeaweedFS | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 51/100 | 81/100 |
| Rank in category | #20 of 59 in Music Streaming | #1 of 11 in Cloud Storage |
| GitHub stars | 588 | 35 794 |
| Stars, last 30 days | — | +869 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 11 | 28 |
| Latest release | v2.5.0 · 10 Sept 2026 | 4.51 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Main language | Java | Go |
Which one should you pick?
SeaweedFS scores 81/100 against 51/100 for qm-music, so it is the safer default.
SeaweedFS ships more often: 28 stable releases in the past year, against 11 for qm-music.
If you want the quickest setup, qm-music is easier to run; SeaweedFS needs more configuration.
SeaweedFS is growing faster right now (+869 stars in 30 days).
qm-music details →SeaweedFS details →
Swap a project
Keep qm-music, compare it with
Keep SeaweedFS, compare it with