SHSelfHostIndex

Conduit File Sync vs WebDAV Server Go

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 WE WebDAV Server Go Lightweight standalone WebDAV file server
FeatureConduit File SyncWebDAV Server Go
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITMIT
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyEasyEasy
Min. RAM128 MB64 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, binary
GitHub stars★ 7,221★ 5,750
First released20132017
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 WebDAV Server Go if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 5.8k GitHub stars
WebDAV Server Go details

Frequently asked questions

Is Conduit File Sync or WebDAV Server Go better?

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

Are Conduit File Sync and WebDAV Server Go free and open-source?

Yes. Conduit File Sync is licensed under MIT and WebDAV Server Go under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Conduit File Sync and WebDAV Server Go with Docker?

Conduit File Sync: yes. WebDAV Server Go: yes.

Related comparisons