copyparty vs OpenCloud
| Tagline | Portable all-in-one file server with resumable uploads, WebDAV, FTP, and media indexing | Open-source file sharing and collaboration platform built on ownCloud Infinite Scale |
| Category | File Storage & Sync | File Storage & Sync |
| Replaces | Dropbox, Google Drive | Dropbox, Google Drive, Box |
| GitHub stars | 45k | 5.6k |
| Language | Python | Docker |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 3/5 Moderate |
| Deploy options | Docker Manual | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 2 days ago | today |
| 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
OpenCloud
- Built-in office document co-editing requires a separately deployed Collabora or ONLYOFFICE instance
- Mobile clients still maturing compared to Dropbox or Google Drive polish
- Admin complexity is higher than simpler alternatives; microservices require more ops knowledge
- Third-party integrations (Google Workspace-style apps) are limited
Bottom line
Choose copyparty if you want the lower-effort setup; choose copyparty for the larger community and ecosystem. OpenCloud has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.