Invidious vs Wafrn
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted social networks options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
| Feature | Invidious | Wafrn |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Social Networks | Social Networks |
| License | GPL-3.0-only | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | Crystal | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 50 MB | 1,024 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 22,442 | ★ 285 |
| First released | 2023 | 2023 |
| Replaces | YouTube | Tumblr, Twitter |
Why pick each one
Choose Invidious if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0-only license
- Mature project with 22.4k GitHub stars
- Written in Crystal
- Tiny footprint — runs in 50 MB RAM
Choose Wafrn if…
- Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Written in TypeScript
Frequently asked questions
Is Invidious or Wafrn better?
Neither is universally better. Invidious has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Invidious and Wafrn free and open-source?
Yes. Invidious is licensed under GPL-3.0-only and Wafrn under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Invidious and Wafrn with Docker?
Invidious: check the project docs for container support. Wafrn: yes.