Conserve Backup vs Rclone
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
Rclone
Sync and copy files to dozens of cloud providers
| Feature | Conserve Backup | Rclone |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Backup & Recovery | Backup & Recovery |
| License | GPL-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | Rust | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | binary, bare-metal | binary, docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 278 | ★ 58,995 |
| First released | 2015 | 2014 |
| Replaces | Backblaze | Backblaze |
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 Rclone better?
Neither is universally better. Rclone has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Conserve Backup and Rclone free and open-source?
Yes. Conserve Backup is licensed under GPL-2.0 and Rclone under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conserve Backup and Rclone with Docker?
Conserve Backup: check the project docs for container support. Rclone: yes.