AList vs Harbor
| Tagline | File list program supporting multiple storages, with WebDAV and web UI | Cloud native container image registry with vulnerability scanning and access control |
| Category | File Storage & Sync | File Storage & Sync |
| Replaces | Google Drive, Dropbox | Dropbox, Box |
| GitHub stars | 50k | 29k |
| Language | Go | Docker |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 4/5 Involved |
| Deploy options | Docker Manual | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 13 days ago | today |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
AList
- Primarily a read/list and aggregation layer; not a true two-way sync engine like Dropbox
- No native desktop/mobile sync clients (relies on WebDAV)
- Limited collaboration, versioning, and team permission features
- Documentation is partly Chinese-first and can lag for some backends
Harbor
- Scoped to container/OCI artifacts only; not a general-purpose file storage solution
- High operational overhead; requires PostgreSQL, Redis, and careful networking configuration
- Upgrade process between major versions can be complex and error-prone
- Managed cloud registries (ECR, GCR, ACR) offer tighter CI/CD integrations out of the box
Bottom line
Choose AList if you want the lower-effort setup; choose AList for the larger community and ecosystem. Harbor has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
Harbor
Cloud native container image registry with vulnerability scanning and access control