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.
Not the right match-up?
fgallery
Minimalist static photo gallery generator
VS
nanogallery2
JavaScript photo and video gallery library you host yourself
| Feature | fgallery | nanogallery2 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | ★ 251 | ★ 791 |
| First released | 2013 | 2017 |
| Replaces | Flickr, Google Photos | Flickr, SmugMug |
Why pick each one
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.