PicoShare 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?
FeaturePicoSharePuter
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseAGPL-3.0AGPL-3.0
LanguageGoTypeScript
Setup difficultyEasyMedium
Min. RAM64 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker
GitHub stars★ 2,971★ 43,003
First released20212026
ReplacesDropbox, WeTransfer

Why pick each one

Choose PicoShare if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Active community (3k GitHub stars)
PicoShare 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 PicoShare or Puter better?

Neither is universally better. Puter has the larger community, while PicoShare is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.

Are PicoShare and Puter free and open-source?

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

Can I run PicoShare and Puter with Docker?

PicoShare: yes. Puter: yes.

Related comparisons