Backrest vs Conserve Backup
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted backup & recovery options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Backrest
Web UI and orchestrator for Restic backups
VS
Conserve Backup
Robust, fast, deduplicating backup tool
| Feature | Backrest | Conserve Backup |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | Under-an-hour setup | Read-the-docs project |
| Health score | 91 · Excellent | 58 · Fair |
| Category | Backup & Recovery | Backup & Recovery |
| License | GPL-3.0 | GPL-2.0 |
| Language | TypeScript | Rust |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | binary, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 7,389 | ★ 278 |
| First released | 2024 | 2015 |
| Replaces | Backblaze | Backblaze |
What are Backrest and Conserve Backup?
Backrest
Backrest is a web-based backup orchestrator built on top of Restic, adding scheduling, monitoring, and a friendly interface. It targets users who want Restic's power with a GUI. It is deployed via Docker or a binary.
- Web UI for Restic
- Scheduling and retention policies
- Backup health monitoring
- Notifications
Conserve Backup
Conserve is a robust backup program written in Rust that creates deduplicated, versioned archives to local or remote storage. It emphasizes data safety and resumable operations.
- Deduplicated archives
- Versioned backups
- Resumable operations
- Data-safety focus
Backrest vs Conserve Backup: key differences
Backrest is written in TypeScript, while Conserve Backup is built with Rust. Licensing differs — GPL-3.0 for Backrest versus GPL-2.0 for Conserve Backup. Conserve Backup is the lighter option, starting around 128 MB of RAM against 256 MB for Backrest. Conserve Backup is the more established project (first released 2015), while Backrest arrived in 2024. Backrest has the considerably larger community, at 7,389 GitHub stars versus 278. Backrest lists first-class Docker deployment; Conserve Backup does not.
Why pick each one
Choose Backrest if…
- Makes Restic approachable
- Good scheduling
- Lightweight
Watch out for
- Young project
- Depends on Restic underneath
Choose Conserve Backup if…
- Released under the GPL-2.0 license
- Written in Rust
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Backrest or Conserve Backup better?
Backrest is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Conserve Backup if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Backrest and Conserve Backup free and open-source?
Yes. Backrest is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Conserve Backup under GPL-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Backrest and Conserve Backup with Docker?
Backrest: yes. Conserve Backup: check the project docs for container support.
Which is lighter on resources, Backrest or Conserve Backup?
Conserve Backup has the smaller minimum footprint at 128 MB of RAM, compared to about 256 MB for Backrest. Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.