SHSelfHostIndex

Backrest vs Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup

A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted backup & recovery options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.

Not the right match-up?
BA Backrest Web UI and orchestrator for Restic backups VS BA Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup Time Machine-style backups for Linux and macOS using rsync
FeatureBackrestBackup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup
CategoryBackup & RecoveryBackup & Recovery
LicenseGPL-3.0MIT
LanguageTypeScriptShell
Setup difficultyEasyEasy
Min. RAM256 MB32 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarybinary
GitHub stars★ 7,071★ 3,608
First released20242014
ReplacesBackblazeTime Machine

Why pick each one

Choose Backrest if…

  • Makes Restic approachable
  • Good scheduling
  • Lightweight
Backrest details

Choose Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • Active community (3.6k GitHub stars)
  • Written in Shell
Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup details

Frequently asked questions

Is Backrest or Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup better?

Neither is universally better. Backrest has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.

Are Backrest and Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup free and open-source?

Yes. Backrest is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Backrest and Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup with Docker?

Backrest: yes. Backup wrapper nono Backup-rsync-time-backup: check the project docs for container support.

Related comparisons