copyparty vs Puter

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?
FeaturecopypartyPuter
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITAGPL-3.0
LanguagePythonTypeScript
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM64 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker
GitHub stars★ 46,121★ 43,003
First released20192026
ReplacesDropbox, Google Drive

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 Puter if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 43k GitHub stars
  • Written in TypeScript
Puter details

Frequently asked questions

Is copyparty or Puter better?

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

Are copyparty and Puter free and open-source?

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

Can I run copyparty and Puter with Docker?

copyparty: yes. Puter: yes.

Related comparisons