Learn how Pluton and Portabase differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these server backup solutions is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
5 days agoRepository age
1 yearVersion
v0.23.0License
Apache-2.0Self-hosted
YesRepository
plutonhq/pluton
Last 30 days
Last commit
4 hours agoRepository age
2 yearsVersion
1.36.2License
Apache-2.0Self-hosted
YesRepository
portabase/portabase
Both Pluton and Portabase have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Portabase leads in popularity with 1,904 stars vs 885 stars for Pluton. The 115% higher star count indicates stronger community adoption. In terms of developer contributions, Portabase has 146 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Pluton is growing faster, adding 31 stars in the last 30 days (+3.6%) against adding 59 stars for Portabase (+3.2%). Pluton is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Pluton last updated 5 days ago and Portabase 4 hours ago.
Portabase has been in development longer, starting 2 years ago, compared to Pluton which began 1 year ago. This 1.1-year head start suggests Portabase may have more mature features and established processes.
Both projects use the Apache-2.0 license, providing identical terms for usage and distribution.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Server Backup. However, they also have distinct specializations: Pluton also focuses on Desktop Backup.
Both Pluton and Portabase offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.