File Browser 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?
FeatureFile BrowserPuter
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0AGPL-3.0
LanguageGoTypeScript
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM64 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker
GitHub stars★ 35,800★ 43,003
First released20172026
ReplacesDropbox

Why pick each one

Choose File Browser if…

  • Extremely lightweight
  • Trivial to deploy
  • Good for quick file access
File Browser 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 File Browser or Puter better?

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

Are File Browser and Puter free and open-source?

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

Can I run File Browser and Puter with Docker?

File Browser: yes. Puter: yes.

Related comparisons