# Tube Archivist vs Winter CMS

> Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.

| | Tube Archivist | Winter CMS |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 72/100 ✓ | 62/100 |
| Rank in category | #7 of 118 in Media Server | #16 of 42 in Content Management |
| GitHub stars | 8 552 ✓ | 1 522 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +83 ✓ | +2 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 6 | 7 ✓ |
| Latest release | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 ✓ | v1.2.14 · 19 Aug 2026 |
| Setup | Advanced | Moderate ✓ |
| Official Docker image | Yes ✓ | No |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Python | PHP |

## Which one should you pick?

Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 62/100 for Winter CMS, so it is the safer default.

Winter CMS ships more often: 7 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.

If you want the quickest setup, Winter CMS is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.

Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+83 stars in 30 days).

## Details

- [Tube Archivist](https://selfhost.directory/project/tube-archivist) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/tube-archivist.md)
- [Winter CMS](https://selfhost.directory/project/winter-cms) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/winter-cms.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/tube-archivist-vs-winter-cms