Puter 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?
FeaturePuterXBackBone
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseAGPL-3.0AGPL-3.0
LanguageTypeScriptPHP
Setup difficultyMediumEasy
Min. RAM512 MB50 MB
Deploymentdockerbare-metal
GitHub stars★ 43,003★ 1,161
First released20262023
ReplacesWeTransfer

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 XBackBone if…

  • Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • Active community (1.2k GitHub stars)
  • Written in PHP
XBackBone details

Frequently asked questions

Is Puter or XBackBone better?

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

Are Puter and XBackBone free and open-source?

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

Can I run Puter and XBackBone with Docker?

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

Related comparisons