ByteStash vs Ghostbin
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
Ghostbin
Feature-rich pastebin engine behind the Ghostbin service
| Feature | ByteStash | Ghostbin |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Pastebins & Snippets | Pastebins & Snippets |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language | TypeScript | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 2,514 | ★ 189 |
| First released | 2026 | 2014 |
| Replaces | — | Pastebin.com, GitHub Gist |
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 Ghostbin if…
- Released under the MIT license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Written in JavaScript
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is ByteStash or Ghostbin 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 Ghostbin free and open-source?
Yes. ByteStash is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Ghostbin under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run ByteStash and Ghostbin with Docker?
ByteStash: yes. Ghostbin: yes.