imaginary vs PiGallery2
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted photo management options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
imaginary
Self-hosted microservice for on-demand image processing
VS
PiGallery2
Fast directory-based photo gallery with search and maps
| Feature | imaginary | PiGallery2 |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Photo Management | Photo Management |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | Go | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary, source | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 6,076 | ★ 2,251 |
| First released | 2015 | 2016 |
| Replaces | Cloudinary, imgix | Google Photos |
Why pick each one
Frequently asked questions
Is imaginary or PiGallery2 better?
Neither is universally better. imaginary has the larger community, while PiGallery2 is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are imaginary and PiGallery2 free and open-source?
Yes. imaginary is licensed under MIT and PiGallery2 under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run imaginary and PiGallery2 with Docker?
imaginary: yes. PiGallery2: yes.