tapflowvsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| tapflow | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 55/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #4 of 10 in Testing | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 1 377 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +7 | +83 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 10 | 6 |
| Latest release | v0.30.0 · 27 Oct 2026 | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 55/100 for tapflow, so it is the safer default.
tapflow ships more often: 10 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, tapflow is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+83 stars in 30 days).
tapflow details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep tapflow, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with