Rustic vs Docker Volume Backup

A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted backup & recovery options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.

Not the right match-up?
FeatureRusticDocker Volume Backup
CategoryBackup & RecoveryBackup & Recovery
LicenseApache-2.0MPL-2.0
LanguageRustGo
Setup difficultyMediumEasy
Min. RAM128 MB64 MB
Deploymentbinarydocker
GitHub stars★ 3,170★ 3,944
First released20222021
ReplacesBackblaze, CrashPlanVeeam

Why pick each one

Choose Rustic if…

  • Released under the Apache-2.0 license
  • Active community (3.2k GitHub stars)
  • Written in Rust
  • Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Rustic details

Choose Docker Volume Backup if…

  • Released under the MPL-2.0 license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Active community (3.9k GitHub stars)
Docker Volume Backup details

Frequently asked questions

Is Rustic or Docker Volume Backup better?

Docker Volume Backup is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Rustic if its specific feature set fits your needs better.

Are Rustic and Docker Volume Backup free and open-source?

Yes. Rustic is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Docker Volume Backup under MPL-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run Rustic and Docker Volume Backup with Docker?

Rustic: check the project docs for container support. Docker Volume Backup: yes.

Related comparisons