Stalwart vs transfer.sh
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?
Stalwart
All-in-one Mail & Collaboration server
VS
transfer.sh
Easy file sharing from the command line
| Feature | Stalwart | transfer.sh |
|---|---|---|
| Category | File Sync & Storage | File Sync & Storage |
| License | free | MIT |
| Language | Rust | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 64 MB |
| Deployment | docker, one-click | docker, binary |
| GitHub stars | ★ 14,059 | ★ 15,881 |
| First released | 2022 | 2014 |
| Replaces | — | WeTransfer |
Why pick each one
Choose Stalwart if…
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- One-click install on common self-host platforms
- Mature project with 14.1k GitHub stars
Choose transfer.sh if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 15.9k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is Stalwart or transfer.sh better?
Neither is universally better. transfer.sh has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Stalwart and transfer.sh free and open-source?
Yes. Stalwart is licensed under free and transfer.sh under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Stalwart and transfer.sh with Docker?
Stalwart: yes. transfer.sh: yes.