copyparty vs FileBrowser Quantum

A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted file sync & storage options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.

Not the right match-up?
FeaturecopypartyFileBrowser Quantum
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITApache-2.0
LanguagePythonGo
Setup difficultyEasyEasy
Min. RAM64 MB128 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, binary
GitHub stars★ 46,121★ 7,695
First released20192024
ReplacesDropbox, Google DriveGoogle Drive, Dropbox

Why pick each one

Choose copyparty if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 46.1k GitHub stars
copyparty details

Choose FileBrowser Quantum if…

  • Released under the Apache-2.0 license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 7.7k GitHub stars
FileBrowser Quantum details

Frequently asked questions

Is copyparty or FileBrowser Quantum better?

Neither is universally better. copyparty has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.

Are copyparty and FileBrowser Quantum free and open-source?

Yes. copyparty is licensed under MIT and FileBrowser Quantum under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run copyparty and FileBrowser Quantum with Docker?

copyparty: yes. FileBrowser Quantum: yes.

Related comparisons