SandBase HarnessvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| SandBase Harness | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 39/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #169 of 209 in AI Agents | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 637 | 8 553 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +1 | +84 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 9 | 6 |
| Latest release | v0.3.8 · 30 Aug 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 39/100 for SandBase Harness, so it is the safer default.
SandBase Harness ships more often: 9 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, SandBase Harness is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+84 stars in 30 days).
SandBase Harness details →Tube Archivist details →