# RabbitMQ vs Tube Archivist

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

| | RabbitMQ | Tube Archivist |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 77/100 ✓ | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #3 of 12 in Message Broker | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 13 950 ✓ | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +75 | +83 ✓ |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 14 ✓ | 6 |
| Latest release | v4.3.7 · 20 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 ✓ |
| Setup | Moderate ✓ | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Other | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | JavaScript | Python |

## Which one should you pick?

RabbitMQ scores 77/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.

RabbitMQ ships more often: 14 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.

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

## Details

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

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