SHSelfHostIndex

FileBrowser Quantum vs Conduit File Sync

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?
FI FileBrowser Quantum Enhanced web file manager fork with extra features VS CO Conduit File Sync Lightweight folder synchronization for small teams
FeatureFileBrowser QuantumConduit File Sync
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0MIT
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyEasyEasy
Min. RAM128 MB128 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, binary
GitHub stars★ 7,695★ 7,221
First released20242013
ReplacesGoogle Drive, DropboxDropbox

Why pick each one

Choose FileBrowser Quantum if…

  • Released under the Apache-2.0 license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 7.7k GitHub stars
FileBrowser Quantum details

Choose Conduit File Sync if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 7.2k GitHub stars
Conduit File Sync details

Frequently asked questions

Is FileBrowser Quantum or Conduit File Sync better?

Neither is universally better. FileBrowser Quantum has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.

Are FileBrowser Quantum and Conduit File Sync free and open-source?

Yes. FileBrowser Quantum is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Conduit File Sync under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run FileBrowser Quantum and Conduit File Sync with Docker?

FileBrowser Quantum: yes. Conduit File Sync: yes.

Related comparisons