copyparty vs Filestash
| Tagline | Portable all-in-one file server with resumable uploads, WebDAV, FTP, and media indexing | Web file manager connecting to FTP, SFTP, WebDAV, S3, Git, Dropbox, and Google Drive |
| Category | File Storage & Sync | File Storage & Sync |
| Replaces | Dropbox, Google Drive | Dropbox, Google Drive, Box |
| GitHub stars | 45k | 14k |
| Language | Python | Docker |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Manual | Docker Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 2 days ago | 3 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
Filestash
- Advanced features (video transcoding, full-text search) are locked behind a commercial license
- No real-time collaborative editing; file editing is single-user
- No desktop sync client; all interaction is through the web interface
- User and permission management is basic; not suitable as a primary cloud storage replacement for teams
Bottom line
Both are a similar lift to self-host; choose copyparty for the larger community and ecosystem. copyparty has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.