SeaweedFSvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| SeaweedFS | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 81/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 of 11 in Cloud Storage | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 35 795 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +834 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 28 | 6 |
| Latest release | 4.51 · 25 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Go | Python |
Which one should you pick?
SeaweedFS scores 81/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.
SeaweedFS ships more often: 28 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, SeaweedFS is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
SeaweedFS is growing faster right now (+834 stars in 30 days).
SeaweedFS details →Tube Archivist details →