btrbk vs CKAN

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?
FeaturebtrbkCKAN
CategoryBackup & RecoveryBackup & Recovery
LicenseGPL-3.0AGPL-3.0
LanguagePerlPython
Setup difficultyMediumMedium
Min. RAM64 MB512 MB
Deploymentbare-metal, binarybare-metal
GitHub stars★ 2,125★ 5,088
First released20142026
ReplacesTime Machine

Why pick each one

Choose btrbk if…

  • Released under the GPL-3.0 license
  • Active community (2.1k GitHub stars)
  • Written in Perl
  • Tiny footprint — runs in 64 MB RAM
btrbk details

Choose CKAN if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
  • Mature project with 5.1k GitHub stars
  • Written in Python
  • Lightweight — runs in 512 MB RAM
CKAN details

Frequently asked questions

Is btrbk or CKAN better?

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

Are btrbk and CKAN free and open-source?

Yes. btrbk is licensed under GPL-3.0 and CKAN under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run btrbk and CKAN with Docker?

btrbk: check the project docs for container support. CKAN: check the project docs for container support.

Related comparisons