Conduit File Sync vs Syncthing

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 SyncSyncthing
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITMPL-2.0
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyEasyEasy
Min. RAM128 MB128 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, binary, bare-metal
GitHub stars★ 7,221★ 87,439
First released20132014
ReplacesDropboxDropbox, Resilio Sync

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 Syncthing if…

  • No central server needed
  • Very private by design
  • Lightweight and reliable
Syncthing details

Frequently asked questions

Is Conduit File Sync or Syncthing better?

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

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

Yes. Conduit File Sync is licensed under MIT and Syncthing under MPL-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Conduit File Sync and Syncthing with Docker?

Conduit File Sync: yes. Syncthing: yes.

Related comparisons