# scm-manager vs Tube Archivist

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

| | scm-manager | Tube Archivist |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 53/100 | 72/100 ✓ |
| Rank in category | #10 of 14 in Code Hosting | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 184 | 8 553 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | +0 | +84 ✓ |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 | 6 ✓ |
| Latest release | 3.11.4 · 11 Feb 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 ✓ |
| Setup | Moderate ✓ | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Java | Python |

## Which one should you pick?

Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 53/100 for scm-manager, so it is the safer default.

Tube Archivist ships more often: 6 stable releases in the past year, against 3 for scm-manager.

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

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

## Details

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

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