Tube Archivistvswoodpecker-ci
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Tube Archivist | woodpecker-ci | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 72/100 | 73/100 |
| Rank in category | #7 of 118 in Media Server | #5 of 28 in CI/CD |
| GitHub stars | 8 552 | 8 068 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +83 | +161 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 6 | 11 |
| Latest release | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 | v3.20.0 · 28 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Advanced | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | GPL-3.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Main language | Python | Go |
Which one should you pick?
woodpecker-ci scores 73/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.
woodpecker-ci ships more often: 11 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, woodpecker-ci is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Tube Archivist details →woodpecker-ci details →
Swap a project
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with
Keep woodpecker-ci, compare it with