Conduit File Sync 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?
FeatureConduit File SyncPuter
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITAGPL-3.0
LanguageGoTypeScript
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM128 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker
GitHub stars★ 7,221★ 43,003
First released20132026
ReplacesDropbox

Why pick each one

Choose Conduit File Sync if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 7.2k GitHub stars
Conduit File Sync 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 Conduit File Sync or Puter better?

Neither is universally better. Puter has the larger community, while Conduit File Sync is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.

Are Conduit File Sync and Puter free and open-source?

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

Can I run Conduit File Sync and Puter with Docker?

Conduit File Sync: yes. Puter: yes.

Related comparisons