WAL-G vs pgBackWeb
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?
WAL-G
Archival and restoration tool for databases
VS
pgBackWeb
Web interface for scheduling PostgreSQL backups
| Feature | WAL-G | pgBackWeb |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Backup & Recovery | Backup & Recovery |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Language | Go | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Hard | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 4,215 | ★ 2,615 |
| First released | 2017 | 2024 |
| Replaces | pgBackRest | AWS RDS Backups |
Why pick each one
Choose WAL-G if…
- Released under the Apache-2.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (4.2k GitHub stars)
- Written in Go
Choose pgBackWeb if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (2.6k GitHub stars)
Frequently asked questions
Is WAL-G or pgBackWeb better?
Neither is universally better. WAL-G has the larger community, while pgBackWeb is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are WAL-G and pgBackWeb free and open-source?
Yes. WAL-G is licensed under Apache-2.0 and pgBackWeb under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run WAL-G and pgBackWeb with Docker?
WAL-G: yes. pgBackWeb: yes.