ByteStash vs Chiyogami
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted pastebins & snippets options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
ByteStash
Pastebin and file storage service with a simple web interface
VS
Chiyogami
Pastebin with API, client-side encryption, user accounts, syntax
| Feature | ByteStash | Chiyogami |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Pastebins & Snippets | Pastebins & Snippets |
| License | GPL-3.0 | BSD-3-Clause |
| Language | TypeScript | HTML |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 2,514 | ★ 79 |
| First released | 2026 | 2026 |
| Replaces | — | — |
Why pick each one
Choose ByteStash if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (2.5k GitHub stars)
- Written in TypeScript
Choose Chiyogami if…
- Released under the BSD-3-Clause license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Written in HTML
- Lightweight — runs in 512 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is ByteStash or Chiyogami better?
Neither is universally better. ByteStash has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are ByteStash and Chiyogami free and open-source?
Yes. ByteStash is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Chiyogami under BSD-3-Clause. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run ByteStash and Chiyogami with Docker?
ByteStash: yes. Chiyogami: yes.