QGIS Web ClientvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| QGIS Web Client | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 57/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #9 of 12 in Maps | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 383 | 8 553 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +0 | +84 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 10 | 6 |
| Latest release | ci-latest-master · 27 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Advanced | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | BSD-2-Clause | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | JavaScript | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 57/100 for QGIS Web Client, so it is the safer default.
QGIS Web Client ships more often: 10 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+84 stars in 30 days).
QGIS Web Client details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep QGIS Web Client, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with