Puter vs qrcp

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?
FeaturePuterqrcp
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseAGPL-3.0MIT
LanguageTypeScriptGo
Setup difficultyMediumEasy
Min. RAM512 MB64 MB
Deploymentdockerbinary, bare-metal
GitHub stars★ 43,003★ 10,491
First released20262018
ReplacesAirDrop, Snapdrop

Why pick each one

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

Choose qrcp if…

  • Instant phone transfers
  • Zero configuration
qrcp details

Frequently asked questions

Is Puter or qrcp better?

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

Are Puter and qrcp free and open-source?

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

Can I run Puter and qrcp with Docker?

Puter: yes. qrcp: check the project docs for container support.

Related comparisons