AList vs Puter
| Tagline | File list program supporting multiple storages, with WebDAV and web UI | Web-based cloud OS with file storage, apps, and remote desktop in the browser |
| Category | File Storage & Sync | File Storage & Sync |
| Replaces | Google Drive, Dropbox | Google Drive, Dropbox, Box |
| GitHub stars | 50k | 42k |
| Language | Go | Nodejs |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 3/5 Moderate |
| Deploy options | Docker Manual | Docker Docker Compose 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
Puter
- Self-hosted setup is more complex than advertised; production hardening requires significant effort
- No native desktop sync client; all access is browser-based
- Third-party app ecosystem is nascent and lacks the breadth of Google Workspace or Office 365
- Enterprise features (SSO, audit logs, compliance) are not yet available in the self-hosted version
Bottom line
Choose AList if you want the lower-effort setup; choose AList for the larger community and ecosystem. Puter has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
Puter
Web-based cloud OS with file storage, apps, and remote desktop in the browser