Puter vs RcloneView

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?
FeaturePuterRcloneView
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseAGPL-3.0Apache-2.0
LanguageTypeScriptC++
Setup difficultyMediumEasy
Min. RAM512 MB256 MB
Deploymentdockerbinary
GitHub stars★ 43,003★ 2,941
First released20262017
ReplacesMountain Duck, Cyberduck

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 RcloneView if…

  • Released under the Apache-2.0 license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • Active community (2.9k GitHub stars)
  • Written in C++
RcloneView details

Frequently asked questions

Is Puter or RcloneView better?

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

Are Puter and RcloneView free and open-source?

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

Can I run Puter and RcloneView with Docker?

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

Related comparisons