Learn how Peergos 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.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
License
Repository

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

Both Peergos and Puter 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.
Puter significantly outpaces Peergos in community adoption with 43,518 stars compared to 2,515 stars on GitHub. This 17.3x difference suggests Puter has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Puter has 4,051 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Peergos is growing faster, adding 70 stars in the last 30 days (+2.9%) against adding 464 stars for Puter (+1.1%). Peergos is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Peergos last updated 18 hours ago and Puter 11 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with Bash. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Peergos uses Java while Puter leverages JavaScript, CSS, Typescript.
Peergos has been in development longer, starting 13 years ago, compared to Puter which began 3 years ago. This 10.7-year head start suggests Peergos 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 Cloud File Sync & Share, Encrypted Storage. However, they also have distinct specializations: Peergos also focuses on Distributed Storage while Puter extends into Cloud Storage.
Puter 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