Learn how ownCloud and Peergos 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.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
License
Repository

Both ownCloud and Peergos have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Both tools have similar popularity levels, with ownCloud having 2,121 stars and Peergos having 2,518 stars on GitHub. In terms of developer contributions, ownCloud has 274 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Peergos is growing faster, adding 73 stars in the last 30 days (+3%) against adding 30 stars for ownCloud (+1.4%). Peergos is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with ownCloud last updated 10 hours ago and Peergos 12 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with Bash. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: ownCloud uses JavaScript, CSS, Typescript, Python, SCSS, Golang, Vue, PHP while Peergos leverages Java.
Peergos has been in development longer, starting 13 years ago, compared to ownCloud which began 7 years ago. This 6.1-year head start suggests Peergos may have more mature features and established processes.
The projects use different licenses: ownCloud is licensed under Apache-2.0 while Peergos uses AGPL-3.0. Consider the licensing requirements when choosing for your project.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Cloud File Sync & Share. However, they also have distinct specializations: ownCloud also focuses on Cloud Storage while Peergos extends into Distributed Storage, Encrypted Storage.
ownCloud provides self-hosting options for complete data control and customization, while Peergos may be primarily cloud-based or require different deployment approaches.
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs