Learn how Hoodik and Puter differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these cloud file sync & share tools is best for you.
Stars
Forks
Last commit
Repository age
Self-hosted
Auto-fetched .

Auto-fetched .

Both Hoodik and Puter have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Puter significantly outpaces Hoodik in community adoption with 40,633 stars compared to 1,124 stars on GitHub. This 36.2x difference suggests Puter has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Puter has 3,668 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Both projects show recent activity, with Hoodik last updated 3 days ago and Puter 8 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Hoodik uses Rust, Vue.
Hoodik has been in development longer, starting 3 years ago, compared to Puter which began 2 years ago. This 1.2-year head start suggests Hoodik may have more mature features and established processes.
Puter is licensed under AGPL-3.0, while Hoodik's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Cloud File Sync & Share, Cloud Storage. However, they also have distinct specializations: Puter extends into Encrypted Storage.
Both Hoodik and Puter offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.