File Browser vs hash-calendar

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 Browserhash-calendar
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0MIT
LanguageGoJavaScript
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM64 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarybare-metal
GitHub stars★ 35,800★ 69
First released20172026
ReplacesDropboxGoogle Agenda, Microsoft Outlook

Why pick each one

Choose File Browser if…

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

Choose hash-calendar if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Written in JavaScript
  • Lightweight — runs in 512 MB RAM
hash-calendar details

Frequently asked questions

Is File Browser or hash-calendar better?

File Browser is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider hash-calendar if its specific feature set fits your needs better.

Are File Browser and hash-calendar free and open-source?

Yes. File Browser is licensed under Apache-2.0 and hash-calendar under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run File Browser and hash-calendar with Docker?

File Browser: yes. hash-calendar: check the project docs for container support.

Related comparisons