Tube ArchivistvsWastebin
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Tube Archivist | Wastebin | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 72/100 | 56/100 |
| Rank in category | #7 of 118 in Media Server | #4 of 19 in Pastebins |
| GitHub stars | 8 552 | 880 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +83 | +20 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 6 | 11 |
| Latest release | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 | 3.9.0 · 15 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Advanced | Easy |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Python | Rust |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 56/100 for Wastebin, so it is the safer default.
Wastebin ships more often: 11 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, Wastebin is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+83 stars in 30 days).
Tube Archivist details →Wastebin details →
Swap a project
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with
Keep Wastebin, compare it with