File Browser vs Flying Carpet

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?
FeatureFile BrowserFlying Carpet
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0GPL-3.0
LanguageGoRust
Setup difficultyEasyEasy
Min. RAM64 MB128 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarybinary, bare-metal
GitHub stars★ 35,800★ 5,266
First released20172017
ReplacesDropboxAirDrop, Snapdrop

Why pick each one

Choose File Browser if…

  • Extremely lightweight
  • Trivial to deploy
  • Good for quick file access
File Browser details

Choose Flying Carpet if…

  • Works fully offline
  • Cross-platform including mobile
Flying Carpet details

Frequently asked questions

Is File Browser or Flying Carpet better?

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

Are File Browser and Flying Carpet free and open-source?

Yes. File Browser is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Flying Carpet under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run File Browser and Flying Carpet with Docker?

File Browser: yes. Flying Carpet: check the project docs for container support.

Related comparisons