Puter vs Firefox SyncStorage

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?
FeaturePuterFirefox SyncStorage
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseAGPL-3.0MPL-2.0
LanguageTypeScriptRust
Setup difficultyMediumEasy
Min. RAM512 MB50 MB
Deploymentdockerbare-metal
GitHub stars★ 43,003★ 1,784
First released20262023
Replaces

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 Firefox SyncStorage if…

  • Released under the MPL-2.0 license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • Active community (1.8k GitHub stars)
  • Written in Rust
Firefox SyncStorage details

Frequently asked questions

Is Puter or Firefox SyncStorage better?

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

Are Puter and Firefox SyncStorage free and open-source?

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

Can I run Puter and Firefox SyncStorage with Docker?

Puter: yes. Firefox SyncStorage: check the project docs for container support.

Related comparisons