copyparty vs Yopass
| Tagline | Portable all-in-one file server with resumable uploads, WebDAV, FTP, and media indexing | Secure one-time sharing of secrets, passwords, and small files |
| Category | File Storage & Sync | File Storage & Sync |
| Replaces | Dropbox, Google Drive | Dropbox, Google Drive |
| GitHub stars | 45k | 2.8k |
| Language | Python | Go |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| 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
Yopass
- Not a general-purpose file storage tool; limited to small secret payloads
- No persistent file storage; every secret auto-deletes after first access or TTL
- No user accounts, history, or file browsing capabilities
- Requires Memcached or Redis as an external dependency
Bottom line
Choose copyparty if you want the lower-effort setup; choose copyparty for the larger community and ecosystem. Yopass 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