ByteStash vs paste
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
paste
Minimalist self-hosted pastebin written in Go
| Feature | ByteStash | paste |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Pastebins & Snippets | Pastebins & Snippets |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language | TypeScript | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | docker | docker, binary, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 2,514 | ★ 578 |
| First released | 2026 | 2018 |
| 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
Frequently asked questions
Is ByteStash or paste better?
Neither is universally better. ByteStash has the larger community, while paste is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are ByteStash and paste free and open-source?
Yes. ByteStash is licensed under GPL-3.0 and paste under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run ByteStash and paste with Docker?
ByteStash: yes. paste: yes.