Sanoid vs Timeshift
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?
Sanoid
Policy-driven ZFS snapshot management and replication
VS
Timeshift
System restore tool for Linux using snapshots
| Feature | Sanoid | Timeshift |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Backup & Recovery | Backup & Recovery |
| License | GPL-3.0 | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | Perl | Vala |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal | binary, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 3,830 | ★ 4,219 |
| First released | 2014 | 2014 |
| Replaces | Time Machine | Time Machine, System Restore |
Why pick each one
Choose Sanoid if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- Active community (3.8k GitHub stars)
- Written in Perl
- Tiny footprint — runs in 128 MB RAM
Choose Timeshift if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Active community (4.2k GitHub stars)
- Written in Vala
Frequently asked questions
Is Sanoid or Timeshift better?
Timeshift is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Sanoid if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Sanoid and Timeshift free and open-source?
Yes. Sanoid is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Timeshift under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Sanoid and Timeshift with Docker?
Sanoid: check the project docs for container support. Timeshift: check the project docs for container support.