Tube ArchivistvsXibo CMS
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Tube Archivist | Xibo CMS | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 72/100 | 59/100 |
| Rank in category | #7 of 118 in Media Server | #2 of 7 in Digital Signage |
| GitHub stars | 8 552 | 517 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +83 | +0 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 6 | 7 |
| Latest release | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 | 4.5.5 · 21 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Advanced | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | No |
| License | GPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Python | Typescript |
Which one should you pick?
Tube Archivist scores 72/100 against 59/100 for Xibo CMS, so it is the safer default.
Xibo CMS ships more often: 7 stable releases in the past year, against 6 for Tube Archivist.
If you want the quickest setup, Xibo CMS is easier to run; Tube Archivist needs more configuration.
Tube Archivist is growing faster right now (+83 stars in 30 days).
Tube Archivist details →Xibo CMS details →
Swap a project
Keep Tube Archivist, compare it with
Keep Xibo CMS, compare it with