copyparty vs File Browser
| Tagline | Portable all-in-one file server with resumable uploads, WebDAV, FTP, and media indexing | Lightweight web file manager for a single directory on your server |
| Category | File Storage & Sync | File Storage & Sync |
| Replaces | Dropbox, Google Drive | Dropbox, Google Drive |
| GitHub stars | 46k | 36k |
| Language | Python | Go |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Manual | Docker Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 3 days ago | 2 days ago |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
copyparty
- No selective sync desktop client; files must be managed via web UI, CLI, or WebDAV
- User management and access control are basic compared to Dropbox Teams or Google Drive Shared Drives
- No online document editing (Docs/Sheets equivalent)
- Mobile apps are absent; mobile access is browser or WebDAV only
File Browser
- No automatic desktop or mobile sync client; it's a web file manager, not a sync engine
- No file versioning or trash/restore comparable to Dropbox
- Single-directory scope; not built for large multi-tenant deployments
- Sharing and collaboration features are basic compared to Google Drive
Bottom line
Both are a similar lift to self-host; choose copyparty for the larger community and ecosystem. File Browser has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
copyparty
Portable all-in-one file server with resumable uploads, WebDAV, FTP, and media indexing