Tube Archivist
Organize, search, and enjoy your YouTube collection. Subscribe, download, and track viewed content with metadata indexing and a user-friendly interface.
Tube Archivist vs Wallabag
Two self-hosted Archiving and Digital Preservation (DP) apps, compared on the facts we track: GitHub popularity and activity, license, language, Docker images and a rough hosting estimate.
Side by side
| Tube Archivist | Wallabag | |
|---|---|---|
| Description | Organize, search, and enjoy your YouTube collection. Subscribe, download, and track viewed content with metadata indexing and a user-friendly interface. | Web application, formerly Poche, allowing you to save articles to read them later with improved readability. |
| GitHub stars | 8,569 | 13,048 |
| Forks | – | – |
| Open issues | – | – |
| Commits (12 months) | 217 | 916 |
| Last activity | 2026-10-25 | 2026-11-03 |
| Latest release | v0.6.0 (2026-10-25) | 2.6.15 (2026-10-28) |
| Maintenance health | Active | Active |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language / platform | Docker | PHP |
| Docker Hub image | – | – |
| Docker pulls | – | – |
| Est. server size | ~4 GB, 2 vCPU | ~2 GB, 1 vCPU |
| Est. hosting from | $20/mo | $10/mo |
| Categories | Media Streaming - Video Streaming, Archiving and Digital Preservation (DP) | Archiving and Digital Preservation (DP) |
| Links | Website · Source | Website · Source |
What the numbers say
- Wallabag is more popular on GitHub: 13k stars vs 8.6k for Tube Archivist.
- Wallabag had more commits in the last 12 months (916 vs 217).
- Wallabag published a release more recently (2.6.15 on 2026-10-28; Tube Archivist's latest is v0.6.0 on 2026-10-25).
- Tube Archivist is licensed under GPL-3.0, Wallabag under MIT. Wallabag's license is permissive; Tube Archivist's is copyleft (changes you distribute must stay open).
- Wallabag is written in PHP; the language of Tube Archivist is not listed upstream.
- Deployment options listed upstream: Tube Archivist: Docker; Wallabag: none listed.
- Our rough hardware estimate is lighter for Wallabag (~2 GB server) than Tube Archivist (~4 GB); this is an estimate from the stack and category, not a benchmark.
Summary: Wallabag leads on GitHub popularity and commit activity. The right choice depends on the features you need — read both project descriptions and docs.
This summary is generated from GitHub, Docker Hub and awesome-selfhosted data as of 2026-11-05. It does not rate features or quality.
Frequently asked questions
Is Tube Archivist or Wallabag more popular?
Wallabag has more GitHub stars (13,048 vs 8,569 for Tube Archivist, as of 2026-11-05). Stars measure interest, not quality.
Which is more actively maintained, Tube Archivist or Wallabag?
Wallabag had more commits over the last 12 months (916 vs 217). The last recorded activity was 2026-10-25 for Tube Archivist and 2026-11-03 for Wallabag. Our health labels: Tube Archivist is “Active”, Wallabag is “Active”.
What licenses do Tube Archivist and Wallabag use?
Tube Archivist: GPL-3.0. Wallabag: MIT. Wallabag's license is permissive; Tube Archivist's is copyleft (changes you distribute must stay open).
Can I run Tube Archivist and Wallabag with Docker?
We did not detect a Docker Hub image for either app. The upstream listing mentions Docker as a deployment option for Tube Archivist. Check each project's documentation for install options.
Read more
Wallabag
Web application, formerly Poche, allowing you to save articles to read them later with improved readability.
Browse all self-hosted Archiving and Digital Preservation (DP) apps.