Tube ArchivistvsUmami
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Tube Archivist | Umami | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 72/100 | 85/100 |
| Rank in category | #7 of 118 in Media Server | #1 of 21 in Web analytics |
| GitHub stars | 8 552 | 39 759 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +83 | +763 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 6 | 13 |
| Latest release | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 | v3.4.1 · 23 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Advanced | Easy |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Python | Typescript |
Which one should you pick?
Umami scores 85/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.
Umami ships more often: 13 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, Umami is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Umami is growing faster right now (+763 stars in 30 days).
Tube Archivist details →Umami details →
Swap a project
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with
Keep Umami, compare it with