copyparty vs sftpgo Community Edition
| Tagline | Portable all-in-one file server with resumable uploads, WebDAV, FTP, and media indexing | Fully-featured SFTP server with FTP/S and WebDAV support |
| Category | File Storage & Sync | File Storage & Sync |
| Replaces | Dropbox, Google Drive | Dropbox, Box, Google Drive |
| GitHub stars | 45k | 12k |
| Language | Python | Go |
| 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 | 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
sftpgo Community Edition
- No built-in collaborative document editing; files are raw storage only
- Web UI is admin-focused, lacks a polished end-user sharing experience compared to Dropbox
- Mobile sync clients are not provided natively; third-party clients needed
- Real-time collaboration and commenting features absent
Bottom line
Choose copyparty if you want the lower-effort setup; 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