copyparty vs Puter
| Tagline | Portable all-in-one file server with resumable uploads, WebDAV, FTP, and media indexing | Web-based cloud OS with file storage, apps, and remote desktop in the browser |
| Category | File Storage & Sync | File Storage & Sync |
| Replaces | Dropbox, Google Drive | Google Drive, Dropbox, Box |
| GitHub stars | 45k | 42k |
| Language | Python | Nodejs |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 3/5 Moderate |
| Deploy options | Docker Manual | Docker Docker Compose Manual |
| 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
Puter
- Self-hosted setup is more complex than advertised; production hardening requires significant effort
- No native desktop sync client; all access is browser-based
- Third-party app ecosystem is nascent and lacks the breadth of Google Workspace or Office 365
- Enterprise features (SSO, audit logs, compliance) are not yet available in the self-hosted version
Bottom line
Choose copyparty if you want the lower-effort setup; choose copyparty for the larger community and ecosystem. Puter has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.