RainbondvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Rainbond | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 64/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #2 of 10 in PaaS | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 6 284 | 8 553 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +0 | +84 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 11 | 6 |
| Latest release | v6.10.1-release · 29 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Other | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Go | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 64/100 for Rainbond, so it is the safer default.
Rainbond ships more often: 11 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, Rainbond is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+84 stars in 30 days).
Rainbond details →Tube Archivist details →