Tube ArchivistvsUptime-Kuma-Web-API
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Tube Archivist | Uptime-Kuma-Web-API | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 72/100 | 39/100 |
| Rank in category | #7 of 118 in Media Server | #12 of 13 in API |
| GitHub stars | 8 552 | 282 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +83 | +0 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 6 | 0 |
| Latest release | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 | — |
| Setup | Advanced | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | GPL-3.0 | — |
| Main language | Python | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 39/100 for Uptime-Kuma-Web-API, so it is the safer default.
Tube Archivist ships more often: 6 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for Uptime-Kuma-Web-API.
If you want the quickest setup, Uptime-Kuma-Web-API is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+83 stars in 30 days).
Tube Archivist details →Uptime-Kuma-Web-API details →
Swap a project
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with
Keep Uptime-Kuma-Web-API, compare it with