Immich vs sigal
| Tagline | High-performance self-hosted photo and video backup, a Google Photos alternative | Static photo gallery generator from directories of images |
| Category | Photo Management | Photo Management |
| Replaces | Google Photos, iCloud Photos | Google Photos |
| GitHub stars | 104k | 860 |
| Language | Docker | Python |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose | Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 5 days ago | 1 month 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.
Immich
- Requires multi-container Docker Compose setup with GPU/CPU for ML; more resource-intensive than cloud alternatives
- Project is still pre-1.0 and explicitly warns against using as the sole backup solution
- No built-in CDN or geo-redundant storage; relies on local disk or manually configured object storage
- Collaborative shared albums lack the polish and third-party integrations of Google Photos
sigal
- Static output only; no user uploads, comments, or sharing features
- No face recognition or metadata-based organization
- Requires rebuilding and redeploying when adding new photos
Bottom line
Choose sigal if you want the lower-effort setup; choose Immich for the larger community and ecosystem. Immich has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
Immich
High-performance self-hosted photo and video backup, a Google Photos alternative