fgallery vs nanogallery2
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted photo management options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
| Feature | fgallery | nanogallery2 |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | Read-the-docs project | Read-the-docs project |
| Health score | 9 · At risk | 12 · At risk |
| Status | Archived | Actively maintained |
| Category | Photo Management | Photo Management |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | JavaScript | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, source | bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 248 | ★ 791 |
| First released | 2013 | 2017 |
| Replaces | Flickr, Google Photos | Flickr, SmugMug |
What are fgallery and nanogallery2?
fgallery
fgallery is a static photo gallery generator that produces a minimalist, self-contained HTML gallery from a folder of images. The generated gallery is fully static, privacy-respecting, and can be hosted on any web server.
- Minimalist static galleries
- Self-contained output
- Mobile friendly
- No tracking
nanogallery2
nanogallery2 is an open-source JavaScript photo and video gallery library that builds responsive, touch-enabled galleries from images stored on your own server. It runs fully client-side and is self-hosted on any static web host.
- Responsive image galleries
- Touch and swipe support
- Lightbox display
- Multiple data sources
fgallery vs nanogallery2: key differences
The biggest difference is maintenance: fgallery's repository is archived and no longer developed, while nanogallery2 is actively maintained. Both projects are written in JavaScript. Licensing differs — MIT for fgallery versus GPL-3.0 for nanogallery2. Nanogallery2 is the lighter option, starting around 64 MB of RAM against 128 MB for fgallery. Fgallery is the more established project (first released 2013), while nanogallery2 arrived in 2017. Nanogallery2 has the considerably larger community, at 791 GitHub stars versus 248.
Why pick each one
Choose fgallery if…
- Clean simple design
- Privacy respecting
Watch out for
- Command-line only
- Minimal features
Choose nanogallery2 if…
- Fully client-side
- Easy to embed
Watch out for
- Library, not a full app
- No upload management
Frequently asked questions
Is fgallery or nanogallery2 better?
Neither is universally better. nanogallery2 has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are fgallery and nanogallery2 free and open-source?
Yes. fgallery is licensed under MIT and nanogallery2 under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run fgallery and nanogallery2 with Docker?
fgallery: check the project docs for container support. nanogallery2: check the project docs for container support.
Which is lighter on resources, fgallery or nanogallery2?
nanogallery2 has the smaller minimum footprint at 64 MB of RAM, compared to about 128 MB for fgallery. Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.