Traffic SourcevsTube Archivist
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Traffic Source | Tube Archivist | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 51/100 | 72/100 |
| Rank in category | #10 of 27 in Analytics | #7 of 118 in Media Server |
| GitHub stars | 679 | 8 552 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +0 | +83 |
| 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 | JavaScript | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 51/100 for Traffic Source, so it is the safer default.
Tube Archivist ships more often: 6 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for Traffic Source.
If you want the quickest setup, Traffic Source is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+83 stars in 30 days).
Traffic Source details →Tube Archivist details →
Swap a project
Keep Traffic Source, compare it with
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with