IFM 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?
FeatureIFMPuter
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITAGPL-3.0
LanguageJavaScriptTypeScript
Setup difficultyMediumMedium
Min. RAM512 MB512 MB
Deploymentbare-metaldocker
GitHub stars★ 371★ 43,003
First released20252026
Replaces

Why pick each one

Choose IFM if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Written in JavaScript
  • Lightweight — runs in 512 MB RAM
IFM 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 IFM or Puter better?

Neither is universally better. Puter has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.

Are IFM and Puter free and open-source?

Yes. IFM is licensed under MIT and Puter under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run IFM and Puter with Docker?

IFM: check the project docs for container support. Puter: yes.

Related comparisons