Flying Carpet vs ShareDrop
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?
Flying Carpet
Wireless file transfer between devices with no shared network
VS
ShareDrop
Peer-to-peer file transfer in the browser
| Feature | Flying Carpet | ShareDrop |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language | Rust | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | binary, bare-metal | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 5,266 | ★ 10,747 |
| First released | 2017 | 2014 |
| Replaces | AirDrop, Snapdrop | AirDrop, WeTransfer |
Why pick each one
Choose ShareDrop if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 10.7k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is Flying Carpet or ShareDrop better?
Neither is universally better. ShareDrop has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Flying Carpet and ShareDrop free and open-source?
Yes. Flying Carpet is licensed under GPL-3.0 and ShareDrop under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Flying Carpet and ShareDrop with Docker?
Flying Carpet: check the project docs for container support. ShareDrop: yes.