File Browser vs XBackBone

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 BrowserXBackBone
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0AGPL-3.0
LanguageGoPHP
Setup difficultyEasyEasy
Min. RAM64 MB50 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarybare-metal
GitHub stars★ 35,800★ 1,161
First released20172023
ReplacesDropboxWeTransfer

Why pick each one

Choose File Browser if…

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

Choose XBackBone if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • Active community (1.2k GitHub stars)
  • Written in PHP
XBackBone details

Frequently asked questions

Is File Browser or XBackBone 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 XBackBone free and open-source?

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

Can I run File Browser and XBackBone with Docker?

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

Related comparisons