Backrest vs Timeshift
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?
Backrest
Web UI and orchestrator for Restic backups
VS
Timeshift
System restore tool for Linux using snapshots
| Feature | Backrest | Timeshift |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Backup & Recovery | Backup & Recovery |
| License | GPL-3.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | TypeScript | Vala |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | binary, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 7,071 | ★ 4,219 |
| First released | 2024 | 2014 |
| Replaces | Backblaze | Time Machine, System Restore |
Why pick each one
Choose Timeshift if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Active community (4.2k GitHub stars)
- Written in Vala
Frequently asked questions
Is Backrest or Timeshift 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 Timeshift free and open-source?
Yes. Backrest is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Timeshift under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Backrest and Timeshift with Docker?
Backrest: yes. Timeshift: check the project docs for container support.