HashBackup vs Rustic
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted backup & recovery options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
HashBackup
Efficient command-line backup with deduplication
VS
Rustic
Fast encrypted deduplicated backup compatible with Restic
| Feature | HashBackup | Rustic |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Backup & Recovery | Backup & Recovery |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Python | Rust |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | binary | binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 1 | ★ 3,170 |
| First released | 2009 | 2022 |
| Replaces | CrashPlan | Backblaze, CrashPlan |
Why pick each one
Choose HashBackup if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Written in Python
- Tiny footprint — runs in 256 MB RAM
Choose Rustic if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- Active community (3.2k GitHub stars)
- Written in Rust
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is HashBackup or Rustic better?
Neither is universally better. Rustic has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are HashBackup and Rustic free and open-source?
Yes. HashBackup is licensed under MIT and Rustic under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run HashBackup and Rustic with Docker?
HashBackup: check the project docs for container support. Rustic: check the project docs for container support.