copyparty vs hash-calendar

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?
Featurecopypartyhash-calendar
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITMIT
LanguagePythonJavaScript
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM64 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarybare-metal
GitHub stars★ 46,121★ 69
First released20192026
ReplacesDropbox, Google DriveGoogle Agenda, Microsoft Outlook

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 hash-calendar if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Written in JavaScript
  • Lightweight — runs in 512 MB RAM
hash-calendar details

Frequently asked questions

Is copyparty or hash-calendar better?

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

Are copyparty and hash-calendar free and open-source?

Yes. copyparty is licensed under MIT and hash-calendar under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run copyparty and hash-calendar with Docker?

copyparty: yes. hash-calendar: check the project docs for container support.

Related comparisons