copyparty vs Unison
| Tagline | Portable all-in-one file server with resumable uploads, WebDAV, FTP, and media indexing | Bidirectional file synchronisation tool for Linux, macOS, and Windows |
| Category | File Storage & Sync | File Storage & Sync |
| Replaces | Dropbox, Google Drive | Dropbox, Google Drive |
| GitHub stars | 45k | 5.4k |
| Language | Python | deb |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 4/5 Involved |
| Deploy options | Docker Manual | Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 2 days ago | 10 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
Unison
- No web UI; requires CLI or basic GTK client, not suitable for non-technical users
- No mobile clients for iOS or Android
- Conflict resolution is interactive and not automated; requires user intervention
- No file versioning or history; deleted files cannot be recovered from the tool itself
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