Conserve Backup vs Kopia
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?
Conserve Backup
Robust, fast, deduplicating backup tool
VS
Kopia
Fast, encrypted backup with a clean interface
| Feature | Conserve Backup | Kopia |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Backup & Recovery | Backup & Recovery |
| License | GPL-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Rust | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | binary, bare-metal | binary, docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 278 | ★ 13,798 |
| First released | 2015 | 2019 |
| Replaces | Backblaze | Backblaze, Carbonite |
Why pick each one
Choose Conserve Backup if…
- Released under the GPL-2.0 license
- Written in Rust
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Conserve Backup or Kopia better?
Kopia is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Conserve Backup if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Conserve Backup and Kopia free and open-source?
Yes. Conserve Backup is licensed under GPL-2.0 and Kopia under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conserve Backup and Kopia with Docker?
Conserve Backup: check the project docs for container support. Kopia: yes.