copyparty vs rmfakecloud

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?
Featurecopypartyrmfakecloud
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITAGPL-3.0
LanguagePythonGo
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM64 MB128 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, binary
GitHub stars★ 46,121★ 1,304
First released20192020
ReplacesDropbox, Google DrivereMarkable Cloud

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 rmfakecloud if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Active community (1.3k GitHub stars)
  • Written in Go
rmfakecloud details

Frequently asked questions

Is copyparty or rmfakecloud better?

copyparty is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider rmfakecloud if its specific feature set fits your needs better.

Are copyparty and rmfakecloud free and open-source?

Yes. copyparty is licensed under MIT and rmfakecloud under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run copyparty and rmfakecloud with Docker?

copyparty: yes. rmfakecloud: yes.

Related comparisons