FileBrowser Quantum vs Puter

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?
FeatureFileBrowser QuantumPuter
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0AGPL-3.0
LanguageGoTypeScript
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM128 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker
GitHub stars★ 7,695★ 43,003
First released20242026
ReplacesGoogle Drive, Dropbox

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 Puter if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 43k GitHub stars
  • Written in TypeScript
Puter details

Frequently asked questions

Is FileBrowser Quantum or Puter better?

Neither is universally better. Puter has the larger community, while FileBrowser Quantum is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.

Are FileBrowser Quantum and Puter free and open-source?

Yes. FileBrowser Quantum is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Puter under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run FileBrowser Quantum and Puter with Docker?

FileBrowser Quantum: yes. Puter: yes.

Related comparisons