How we score self-host difficulty
The 1–5 rubric
The score reflects how hard it is to get a working instance running — not how feature-complete it is. We score against the easiest officially-supported path a project offers.
A one-click deploy template or official managed hosting — you never touch a server.
Typical signal: A deploy button (Railway / Render / PikaPods) or a hosted tier exists.
A single `docker run` brings up a working instance.
Typical signal: One container, embedded/SQLite storage, no external services to wire up.
docker-compose with a few services (app + database + cache).
Typical signal: An official compose file; 2–4 services; little manual configuration.
Manual setup — you configure a database, reverse proxy, env and dependencies yourself.
Typical signal: No turnkey compose; external Postgres/Redis/SMTP; TLS to terminate.
A complex multi-component architecture and/or thin documentation.
Typical signal: Many services, Kubernetes-leaning deployments, or docs that assume deep ops knowledge.
What goes into a score
- Deployment method that exists: One-click template, single container, compose, or fully manual — we score the easiest official path.
- Number of moving parts: How many services (database, cache, queue, worker, reverse proxy) you must run and keep healthy.
- Documentation quality: Whether the official docs get a non-expert to a running instance, or assume deep ops knowledge.
- Managed-hosting escape hatch: Whether an official or third-party hosted option exists for people who don’t want to run servers at all.
Where the data comes from & how it stays fresh
Star counts, last-commit dates, and archived status are pulled straight from the GitHub API every week. When a repo gets archived, the project is automatically flagged so you don’t deploy something abandoned.
Difficulty scores, deploy-option tags, and the honest feature-gap notes are assigned by us against the rubric above, and revised when a project changes how it deploys or what it can do.
Honesty & limitations
- • A difficulty score is a judgement call and a starting point — your exact effort depends on your stack, network, and experience.
- • We deliberately document where each project falls short of the tool it replaces. Missing features are listed, not hidden.
- • We never invent ratings, reviews, or usage statistics. If we don’t have real data for something, we leave it out.
- • Deploy and hosting links may be affiliate links — they never change a score, the ranking, or what we say about a project.
Scores and notes are maintained by the OpenAlt editorial team. Corrections are welcome and reviewed against the rubric.
Methodology FAQ
How do you decide a project’s difficulty score?
We apply the fixed 1–5 rubric on this page to each project: what deployment method actually exists (one-click, single container, compose, or manual), how many services it needs, and how good the official documentation is. The score reflects getting to a working instance, not mastering every advanced feature.
Is the score about installation only, or running it long-term?
Primarily first-run difficulty — getting a working instance. Long-term maintenance (updates, backups) roughly tracks the same scale, but a low score is not a promise that ongoing ops are zero-effort.
How often is the data updated?
Stars, last-commit dates, and archived status are refreshed every week directly from the GitHub API, and projects that get archived are flagged automatically. Difficulty scores and feature-gap notes are editorial and revised when a project changes how it deploys.
What if a score looks wrong?
Tell us — scores are judgement calls and projects evolve. Use the “suggest an edit” link and we’ll re-evaluate against the rubric. We would rather be corrected than be confidently wrong.
Why do you publish each project’s weaknesses?
Because a directory that only lists upsides can’t help you decide. Every project page documents where it falls short of the proprietary tool it replaces, so you can judge whether the trade-off is worth owning your data.