fgallery vs Damselfly Web
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted photo management options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
fgallery
Minimalist static photo gallery generator
VS
Damselfly Web
Server-based digital asset manager for large photo libraries
| Feature | fgallery | Damselfly Web |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Photo Management | Photo Management |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | JavaScript | Python |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 1,024 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, source | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 251 | ★ 700 |
| First released | 2013 | 2011 |
| Replaces | Flickr, Google Photos | Flickr, YouTube |
Why pick each one
Frequently asked questions
Is fgallery or Damselfly Web better?
Neither is universally better. Damselfly Web has the larger community, while fgallery is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are fgallery and Damselfly Web free and open-source?
Yes. fgallery is licensed under MIT and Damselfly Web under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run fgallery and Damselfly Web with Docker?
fgallery: check the project docs for container support. Damselfly Web: yes.