nanogallery2 vs Sigal
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted photo management options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
nanogallery2
JavaScript photo and video gallery library you host yourself
VS
Sigal
Simple static photo gallery generator written in Python
| Feature | nanogallery2 | Sigal |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Photo Management | Photo Management |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language | JavaScript | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, source | bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 791 | ★ 942 |
| First released | 2017 | 2012 |
| Replaces | Flickr, SmugMug | Flickr |
Why pick each one
Frequently asked questions
Is nanogallery2 or Sigal better?
Neither is universally better. Sigal has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are nanogallery2 and Sigal free and open-source?
Yes. nanogallery2 is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Sigal under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run nanogallery2 and Sigal with Docker?
nanogallery2: check the project docs for container support. Sigal: check the project docs for container support.