self-hosted-livesync-servervsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| self-hosted-livesync-server | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 45/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #37 of 40 in Database Management | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 274 | 8 553 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +0 | +84 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 0 | 6 |
| Latest release | — | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | No | Yes |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Shell | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 45/100 for self-hosted-livesync-server, so it is the safer default.
Tube Archivist ships more often: 6 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for self-hosted-livesync-server.
If you want the quickest setup, self-hosted-livesync-server is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+84 stars in 30 days).
self-hosted-livesync-server details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep self-hosted-livesync-server, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with