# Tube Archivist vs zookeeper

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

| | Tube Archivist | zookeeper |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 72/100 | 73/100 ✓ |
| Rank in category | #7 of 118 in Media Server | #1 of 8 in Configuration Management |
| GitHub stars | 8 552 | 12 826 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | +83 ✓ | +15 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 6 ✓ | 0 |
| Latest release | v0.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 | — |
| Setup | Advanced | Moderate ✓ |
| Official Docker image | Yes ✓ | No |
| License | GPL-3.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Main language | Python | Java |

## Which one should you pick?

zookeeper scores 73/100 against 72/100 for Tube Archivist, so it is the safer default.

Tube Archivist ships more often: 6 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for zookeeper.

If you want the quickest setup, zookeeper 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)
- [zookeeper](https://selfhost.directory/project/zookeeper) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/zookeeper.md)

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