Backrest vs Syncthing
| Tagline | Web UI and orchestrator for restic backups across local and cloud storage | Continuous peer-to-peer file synchronization between your own devices |
| Category | File Storage & Sync | File Storage & Sync |
| Replaces | Dropbox, Google Drive | Dropbox, Google Drive |
| GitHub stars | 7.3k | 89k |
| Language | Go | Go |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MPL-2.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Manual | Docker Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 8 days ago | yesterday |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
Backrest
- It's a backup tool, not a live sync/share platform like Dropbox
- No real-time file syncing across devices or shareable links
- No multi-user collaboration or document editing
- Restore is snapshot-based rather than continuous file availability
Syncthing
- Pure peer-to-peer sync: no cloud copy, so files only exist where a device is online (no always-available server unless you run one)
- No web file browser, sharing links, or per-file access control like Dropbox
- No built-in versioning UI beyond simple file versioning options
- Not designed for multi-user team sharing; it's device-to-device for one owner
Bottom line
Both are a similar lift to self-host; choose Syncthing for the larger community and ecosystem. Syncthing has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
Backrest
Web UI and orchestrator for restic backups across local and cloud storage