copyparty vs Sync-in

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?
FeaturecopypartySync-in
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITAGPL-3.0-or-later
LanguagePythonTypeScript
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM64 MB1,024 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarybare-metal
GitHub stars★ 46,121★ 1,630
First released20192025
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 Sync-in if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0-or-later license
  • Active community (1.6k GitHub stars)
  • Written in TypeScript
Sync-in details

Frequently asked questions

Is copyparty or Sync-in better?

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

Are copyparty and Sync-in free and open-source?

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

Can I run copyparty and Sync-in with Docker?

copyparty: yes. Sync-in: check the project docs for container support.

Related comparisons