Filestash vs Rclone
| Tagline | Web file manager connecting to FTP, SFTP, WebDAV, S3, Git, Dropbox, and Google Drive | Command-line program to sync files across 70+ cloud storage providers |
| Category | File Storage & Sync | File Storage & Sync |
| Replaces | Dropbox, Google Drive, Box | Dropbox, Google Drive, Box |
| GitHub stars | 14k | 58k |
| Language | Docker | Go |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Self-host difficulty | 2/5 Easy | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Manual | Docker Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 3 days ago | yesterday |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
Filestash
- Advanced features (video transcoding, full-text search) are locked behind a commercial license
- No real-time collaborative editing; file editing is single-user
- No desktop sync client; all interaction is through the web interface
- User and permission management is basic; not suitable as a primary cloud storage replacement for teams
Rclone
- Primarily a CLI tool; no polished consumer GUI or always-on sync daemon out of the box (the web GUI is experimental)
- No multi-user accounts, sharing links, or collaboration features
- Real-time continuous sync requires scripting or third-party scheduling
- Steep learning curve for non-technical users compared to a Dropbox app
Bottom line
Both are a similar lift to self-host; choose Rclone for the larger community and ecosystem. Rclone has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
Filestash
Web file manager connecting to FTP, SFTP, WebDAV, S3, Git, Dropbox, and Google Drive