Flying Carpet 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?
FeatureFlying CarpetPuter
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseGPL-3.0AGPL-3.0
LanguageRustTypeScript
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM128 MB512 MB
Deploymentbinary, bare-metaldocker
GitHub stars★ 5,266★ 43,003
First released20172026
ReplacesAirDrop, Snapdrop

Why pick each one

Choose Flying Carpet if…

  • Works fully offline
  • Cross-platform including mobile
Flying Carpet 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 Flying Carpet or Puter better?

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

Are Flying Carpet and Puter free and open-source?

Yes. Flying Carpet is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Puter under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Flying Carpet and Puter with Docker?

Flying Carpet: check the project docs for container support. Puter: yes.

Related comparisons