Tube Archivistvsweb-portal
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Tube Archivist | web-portal | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 72/100 | 48/100 |
| Rank in category | #7 of 118 in Media Server | #23 of 44 in Dashboard |
| GitHub stars | 8 553 | 260 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +84 | +1 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 6 | 2 |
| Latest release | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 | v2.6.0 · 27 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Advanced | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | GPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Python | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 48/100 for web-portal, so it is the safer default.
Tube Archivist ships more often: 6 stable releases in the past year, against 2 for web-portal.
If you want the quickest setup, web-portal is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+84 stars in 30 days).
Tube Archivist details →web-portal details →
Swap a project
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with
Keep web-portal, compare it with