bup vs Stash by AppsCode
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
Stash by AppsCode
Kubernetes backup, restore, and disaster recovery operator
| Feature | bup | Stash by AppsCode |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Backup & Recovery | Backup & Recovery |
| License | LGPL-2.1 | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Python | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | binary | kubernetes, helm |
| GitHub stars | ★ 7,337 | ★ 1,423 |
| First released | 2010 | 2017 |
| Replaces | Time Machine | Kasten K10 |
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 Stash by AppsCode if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
- Active community (1.4k GitHub stars)
- Written in Go
Frequently asked questions
Is bup or Stash by AppsCode better?
bup is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler medium setup. Consider Stash by AppsCode if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are bup and Stash by AppsCode free and open-source?
Yes. bup is licensed under LGPL-2.1 and Stash by AppsCode under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run bup and Stash by AppsCode with Docker?
bup: check the project docs for container support. Stash by AppsCode: check the project docs for container support.