runitorvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| runitor | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 49/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #25 of 51 in Monitoring & observability | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 361 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +0 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 4 | 6 |
| Latest release | v1.4.1-build.6 · 17 Mar 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | 0BSD | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Go | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 49/100 for runitor, so it is the safer default.
Tube Archivist ships more often: 6 stable releases in the past year, against 4 for runitor.
If you want the quickest setup, runitor is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+83 stars in 30 days).
runitor details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep runitor, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with