# QGIS Web Client vs Tube 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).

## Details

- [QGIS Web Client](https://selfhost.directory/project/qwc2) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/qwc2.md)
- [Tube Archivist](https://selfhost.directory/project/tube-archivist) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/tube-archivist.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/qwc2-vs-tube-archivist