Puter vs Syncthing
| Tagline | Web-based cloud OS with file storage, apps, and remote desktop in the browser | Continuous peer-to-peer file synchronization between your own devices |
| Category | File Storage & Sync | File Storage & Sync |
| Replaces | Google Drive, Dropbox, Box | Dropbox, Google Drive |
| GitHub stars | 42k | 85k |
| Language | Nodejs | Go |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MPL-2.0 |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Manual | Docker Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | today | 2 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.
Puter
- Self-hosted setup is more complex than advertised; production hardening requires significant effort
- No native desktop sync client; all access is browser-based
- Third-party app ecosystem is nascent and lacks the breadth of Google Workspace or Office 365
- Enterprise features (SSO, audit logs, compliance) are not yet available in the self-hosted version
Syncthing
- Pure peer-to-peer sync: no cloud copy, so files only exist where a device is online (no always-available server unless you run one)
- No web file browser, sharing links, or per-file access control like Dropbox
- No built-in versioning UI beyond simple file versioning options
- Not designed for multi-user team sharing; it's device-to-device for one owner
Bottom line
Choose Syncthing if you want the lower-effort setup; choose Syncthing for the larger community and ecosystem. Puter has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
Puter
Web-based cloud OS with file storage, apps, and remote desktop in the browser