bup 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.
Not the right match-up?
bup
Efficient backup system based on the git packfile format
VS
Conserve Backup
Robust, fast, deduplicating backup tool
| Feature | bup | Conserve Backup |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Backup & Recovery | Backup & Recovery |
| License | LGPL-2.1 | GPL-2.0 |
| Language | Python | Rust |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | binary | binary, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 7,337 | ★ 278 |
| First released | 2010 | 2015 |
| Replaces | Time Machine | Backblaze |
Why pick each one
Choose bup if…
- Released under the LGPL-2.1 license
- Mature project with 7.3k GitHub stars
- Written in Python
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
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 bup or Conserve Backup better?
Neither is universally better. bup has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are bup and Conserve Backup free and open-source?
Yes. bup is licensed under LGPL-2.1 and Conserve Backup under GPL-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run bup and Conserve Backup with Docker?
bup: check the project docs for container support. Conserve Backup: check the project docs for container support.