Retrieval-based-Voice-Conversion-WebUIvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Retrieval-based-Voice-Conversion-WebUI | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 77/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 of 15 in Audio Processing | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 38 925 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +412 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 1 | 6 |
| Latest release | 2.3.260718 · 21 Jul 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | No | Yes |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Python | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Retrieval-based-Voice-Conversion-WebUI scores 77/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.
Tube Archivist ships more often: 6 stable releases in the past year, against 1 for Retrieval-based-Voice-Conversion-WebUI.
If you want the quickest setup, Retrieval-based-Voice-Conversion-WebUI is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Retrieval-based-Voice-Conversion-WebUI is growing faster right now (+412 stars in 30 days).
Retrieval-based-Voice-Conversion-WebUI details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep Retrieval-based-Voice-Conversion-WebUI, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with