SHSelfHostIndex

Conduit File Sync vs SFTPGo

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?
CO Conduit File Sync Lightweight folder synchronization for small teams VS SF SFTPGo Full-featured SFTP, FTP and WebDAV server
FeatureConduit File SyncSFTPGo
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITAGPL-3.0
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM128 MB128 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, binary
GitHub stars★ 7,221★ 12,371
First released20132019
ReplacesDropboxDropbox

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 SFTPGo if…

  • Multi-protocol in one binary
  • Flexible storage backends
  • Strong access controls
SFTPGo details

Frequently asked questions

Is Conduit File Sync or SFTPGo better?

Neither is universally better. SFTPGo 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 SFTPGo free and open-source?

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

Can I run Conduit File Sync and SFTPGo with Docker?

Conduit File Sync: yes. SFTPGo: yes.

Related comparisons