PicoShare vs XBackBone
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?
PicoShare
Minimalist file sharing for permanent direct links
VS
XBackBone
Lightweight file manager with full ShareX support
| Feature | PicoShare | XBackBone |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | Go | PHP |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 50 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 2,971 | ★ 1,161 |
| First released | 2021 | 2023 |
| Replaces | Dropbox, WeTransfer | 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)
Choose XBackBone if…
- Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Active community (1.2k GitHub stars)
- Written in PHP
Frequently asked questions
Is PicoShare or XBackBone better?
Neither is universally better. PicoShare has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are PicoShare and XBackBone free and open-source?
Yes. PicoShare is licensed under AGPL-3.0 and XBackBone under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run PicoShare and XBackBone with Docker?
PicoShare: yes. XBackBone: check the project docs for container support.