copyparty vs MinIO
| Tagline | Portable all-in-one file server with resumable uploads, WebDAV, FTP, and media indexing | High-performance S3-compatible object storage (now archived/commercialized) |
| Category | File Storage & Sync | File Storage & Sync |
| Replaces | Dropbox, Google Drive | Dropbox, Google Drive, Box |
| GitHub stars | 46k | 61k |
| Language | Python | Go |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Manual | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 3 days ago | 3 months 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
MinIO
- Community open-source repo was archived in April 2026; development moved to the commercial AIStor product
- Object storage only — no end-user file sync clients, sharing UI, or document collaboration
- Recent releases stripped the admin web console features, pushing users toward paid offerings
- Requires building app layers on top to behave like Dropbox/Drive
Bottom line
Both are a similar lift to self-host; choose MinIO for the larger community and ecosystem. copyparty 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