# qm-music vs Tube Archivist

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

| | qm-music | Tube Archivist |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 51/100 | 72/100 ✓ |
| Rank in category | #20 of 59 in Music Streaming | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 588 | 8 552 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | +0 | +83 ✓ |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 11 ✓ | 6 |
| Latest release | v2.5.0 · 10 Sept 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 ✓ |
| Setup | Easy ✓ | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Java | Python |

## Which one should you pick?

Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 51/100 for qm-music, so it is the safer default.

qm-music ships more often: 11 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.

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

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

## Details

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

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