Learn how Ente and Puter differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these encrypted storage tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Ente appears to have several advantages over Puter, particularly in growth and maturity. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Both tools have similar popularity levels, with Ente having 29,235 stars and Puter having 43,648 stars on GitHub. In terms of developer contributions, Puter has 4,067 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Ente is growing faster, adding 574 stars in the last 30 days (+2%) against adding 260 stars for Puter (+0.6%). Ente is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Ente last updated 16 hours ago and Puter 11 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Ente uses JSX, Python, Next.js, Golang, Rust, C, Objective-C, Java, Swift, C++, Ruby, Kotlin, Tauri, Dart.
Ente has been in development longer, starting 4 years ago, compared to Puter which began 3 years ago. This 1.4-year head start suggests Ente may have more mature features and established processes.
Both projects use the AGPL-3.0 license, providing identical terms for usage and distribution.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Encrypted Storage. However, they also have distinct specializations: Ente also focuses on Photo & Video Management while Puter extends into Cloud File Sync & Share.
Both Ente and Puter offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.