copyparty vs Conduit File Sync

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?
FeaturecopypartyConduit File Sync
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITMIT
LanguagePythonGo
Setup difficultyEasyEasy
Min. RAM64 MB128 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, binary
GitHub stars★ 46,121★ 7,221
First released20192013
ReplacesDropbox, Google DriveDropbox

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 Conduit File Sync if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 7.2k GitHub stars
Conduit File Sync details

Frequently asked questions

Is copyparty or Conduit File Sync 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 Conduit File Sync free and open-source?

Yes. copyparty is licensed under MIT and Conduit File Sync under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run copyparty and Conduit File Sync with Docker?

copyparty: yes. Conduit File Sync: yes.

Related comparisons