Tube vs Tube Archivist
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted media servers options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Tube
Youtube-like, video Sharing App
VS
Tube Archivist
Self-hosted YouTube media server with metadata and search
| Feature | Tube | Tube Archivist |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Media Servers | Media Servers |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | Python | |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 50 MB | 2,048 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal | docker |
| GitHub stars | — | ★ 8,342 |
| First released | 2023 | 2021 |
| Replaces | Dailymotion, Vimeo, YouTube | YouTube |
Why pick each one
Choose Tube if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Tiny footprint — runs in 50 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Tube or Tube Archivist better?
Neither is universally better. Tube Archivist has the larger community, while Tube is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Tube and Tube Archivist free and open-source?
Yes. Tube is licensed under MIT and Tube Archivist under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Tube and Tube Archivist with Docker?
Tube: check the project docs for container support. Tube Archivist: yes.