Learn how Puter and Sync-in 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
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Both Puter and Sync-in 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 Sync-in in community adoption with 43,206 stars compared to 1,696 stars on GitHub. This 25.5x difference suggests Puter has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Puter has 4,032 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Sync-in is growing faster, adding 97 stars in the last 30 days (+6.1%) against adding 349 stars for Puter (+0.8%). Sync-in is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Puter last updated 6 hours ago and Sync-in 18 days ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, Bash, Typescript. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Puter uses CSS while Sync-in leverages SCSS, NestJS.
Puter has been in development longer, starting 2 years ago, compared to Sync-in which began 1 year ago. This 1.4-year head start suggests Puter 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. However, they also have distinct specializations: Puter also focuses on Cloud Storage, Encrypted Storage while Sync-in extends into Collaborative Workspaces, Secure Document Sharing.
Both Puter and Sync-in offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.