File Browser 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?
FeatureFile BrowserConduit File Sync
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0MIT
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyEasyEasy
Min. RAM64 MB128 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, binary
GitHub stars★ 35,800★ 7,221
First released20172013
ReplacesDropboxDropbox

Why pick each one

Choose File Browser if…

  • Extremely lightweight
  • Trivial to deploy
  • Good for quick file access
File Browser 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 File Browser or Conduit File Sync 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 Conduit File Sync free and open-source?

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

Can I run File Browser and Conduit File Sync with Docker?

File Browser: yes. Conduit File Sync: yes.

Related comparisons