Kinto 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?
FeatureKintoPuter
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0AGPL-3.0
LanguagePythonTypeScript
Setup difficultyMediumMedium
Min. RAM256 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, bare-metaldocker
GitHub stars★ 4,417★ 43,003
First released20152026
ReplacesFirebase

Why pick each one

Choose Kinto if…

  • Simple HTTP API
  • Good for app backends
Kinto 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 Kinto or Puter better?

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

Are Kinto and Puter free and open-source?

Yes. Kinto is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Puter under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Kinto and Puter with Docker?

Kinto: yes. Puter: yes.

Related comparisons