SRSvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted Media Server projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| SRS | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 78/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #4 of 118 in Media Server | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 29 390 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +111 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 13 | 6 |
| Latest release | v7.0-a3 · 25 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | C | Python |
Which one should you pick?
SRS scores 78/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.
SRS ships more often: 13 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, SRS is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
SRS details →Tube Archivist details →All Media Server projects →
Swap a project
Keep SRS, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with