Conduit File Sync vs Unison
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?
Conduit File Sync
Lightweight folder synchronization for small teams
VS
Unison
Bidirectional file synchronizer with conflict detection
| Feature | Conduit File Sync | Unison |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | Go | OCaml |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | bare-metal, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 7,221 | ★ 5,429 |
| First released | 2013 | 1999 |
| Replaces | Dropbox | Dropbox |
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
Frequently asked questions
Is Conduit File Sync or Unison better?
Conduit File Sync is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Unison if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Conduit File Sync and Unison free and open-source?
Yes. Conduit File Sync is licensed under MIT and Unison under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Conduit File Sync and Unison with Docker?
Conduit File Sync: yes. Unison: check the project docs for container support.