Tube Archivistvsuptime-kuma
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Tube Archivist | uptime-kuma | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 72/100 | 88/100 |
| Rank in category | #7 of 118 in Media Server | #3 of 104 in Monitoring & observability |
| GitHub stars | 8 552 | 93 050 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +83 | +1 256 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 6 | 19 |
| Latest release | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 | 2.5.8 · 26 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Advanced | Easy |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Python | JavaScript |
Which one should you pick?
uptime-kuma scores 88/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.
uptime-kuma ships more often: 19 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, uptime-kuma is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
uptime-kuma is growing faster right now (+1 256 stars in 30 days).
Tube Archivist details →uptime-kuma details →
Swap a project
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with
Keep uptime-kuma, compare it with