head to head · open source

tubearchivist vs oryx

tubearchivist has 8,451 GitHub stars, 420 forks, 25 open issues and last shipped 21 days ago. oryx has 881 stars, 158 forks, 49 open issues and last shipped 4 days ago. tubearchivist leads on adoption by 859% (8,451 vs 881 stars). tubearchivist is written in Python under GPL-3.0; oryx is written in Go under MIT. tubearchivist has attracted 5% as many forks as stars, oryx 18%. oryx was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 1 topic tag (media-server), so they are genuine substitutes rather than adjacent tools.

Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.

tubearchivist ★ 8.5K oryx ★ 881 category Content & Publishing

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

tubearchivist oryx
GitHub stars ★ 8.5K ★ 881
License GPL-3.0 MIT
Written in Python Go
Last push 2026-08-28 2026-09-14
Forks ⑂ 420 ⑂ 158
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick tubearchivist if

  • You weight community size — 8.5K stars and counting
  • You want the GPL-3.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Python
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full tubearchivist profile →

pick oryx if

  • You want the oryx feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches Go
  • You evaluated both and oryx fits your workflow better

full oryx profile →

About tubearchivist

Tube Archivist is a self hosted YouTube media server that downloads videos with yt dlp, indexes them with metadata from YouTube, and serves them back through a searchable web interface, built for people whose personal YouTube archive has grown past the point where folders and filenames still work.

read the full tubearchivist overview →

About oryx

Oryx (SRS Stack) is an AI driven, all in one, out of the box, open source video solution for creating online video services such as live streaming and WebRTC, in the cloud or through self hosting, aimed at developers and operators who need to run those services themselves.

read the full oryx overview →

More in Content & Publishing

next.js ★ 142K storybook ★ 91K hugo ★ 90K Understand-Anything ★ 83K Strapi ★ 73K nuxt ★ 61K

Related comparisons

mediamtx vs tubearchivist mediamtx vs go2rtc mediamtx vs streama mediamtx vs cloudflare-imgbed mediamtx vs node-media-server mediamtx vs lychee mediamtx vs seanime go2rtc vs streama next-js vs nuxt next-js vs gatsby next-js vs ghost next-js vs jekyll next-js vs hexo next-js vs nextra next-js vs kit next-js vs vike storybook vs understand-anything storybook vs devdocs storybook vs docsify understand-anything vs devdocs storybook vs wiki storybook vs mkdocs-material understand-anything vs docsify understand-anything vs wiki

More Digital Asset Management (DAM) projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the Digital Asset Management (DAM) field.

tubearchivist vs mediamtx tubearchivist vs go2rtc tubearchivist vs streama tubearchivist vs CloudFlare-ImgBed tubearchivist vs Node-Media-Server tubearchivist vs Lychee tubearchivist vs seanime tubearchivist vs Piwigo tubearchivist vs nginx-http-flv-module tubearchivist vs foss_photo_libraries tubearchivist vs tubesync tubearchivist vs UniversalMediaServer

Frequently asked questions

Is tubearchivist or oryx more popular?

tubearchivist has 8,451 GitHub stars and oryx has 881. tubearchivist has the larger community by that measure.

Are tubearchivist and oryx free?

Both are open source. tubearchivist is licensed under GPL-3.0 and oryx under MIT. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between tubearchivist and oryx?

tubearchivist is written in Python and oryx in Go. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, tubearchivist or oryx?

Choose tubearchivist if you want the larger community (8,451 stars) or its GPL-3.0 licence terms. Choose oryx if its feature set, stack or MIT licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.