# rss vs Tube Archivist

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

| | rss | Tube Archivist |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 50/100 | 72/100 ✓ |
| Rank in category | #27 of 85 in Feed Reader | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 566 | 8 553 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | +0 | +84 ✓ |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 0 | 6 ✓ |
| Latest release | — | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy ✓ | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | PHP | Python |

## Which one should you pick?

Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 50/100 for rss, so it is the safer default.

Tube Archivist ships more often: 6 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for rss.

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

Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+84 stars in 30 days).

## Details

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

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