copyparty vs OnionShare
| Tagline | Portable all-in-one file server with resumable uploads, WebDAV, FTP, and media indexing | Securely and anonymously share files of any size over Tor |
| Category | File Storage & Sync | File Storage & Sync |
| Replaces | Dropbox, Google Drive | Dropbox, Google Drive |
| GitHub stars | 45k | 7k |
| Language | Python | Python |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Manual | 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
OnionShare
- Requires Tor; recipients need Tor Browser, creating friction for non-technical users
- Shares are typically ephemeral and one-time by default; not suited for persistent storage
- No folder sync, versioning, or long-term file organisation
- Transfer speeds are slow due to Tor network routing
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.
copyparty
Portable all-in-one file server with resumable uploads, WebDAV, FTP, and media indexing