head to head · open source

copyparty vs MaterialFiles

copyparty has 46,765 GitHub stars, 1,905 forks, 252 open issues and last shipped 2 days ago. MaterialFiles has 9,022 stars, 738 forks, 611 open issues and last shipped 2 days ago. copyparty leads on adoption by 418% (46,765 vs 9,022 stars). copyparty is written in Python under MIT; MaterialFiles is written in Kotlin under GPL-3.0. copyparty has attracted 4% as many forks as stars, MaterialFiles 8%. MaterialFiles was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee.

Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.

copyparty ★ 47K MaterialFiles ★ 9.0K category Productivity & Utilities

← all 20902 open source comparisons

Side by side

copyparty MaterialFiles
GitHub stars ★ 47K ★ 9.0K
License MIT GPL-3.0
Written in Python Kotlin
Last push 2026-09-20 2026-09-20
Forks ⑂ 1.9K ⑂ 738
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick copyparty if

  • You weight community size — 47K stars and counting
  • You want the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches Python
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full copyparty profile →

pick MaterialFiles if

  • You want the MaterialFiles feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the GPL-3.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Kotlin
  • You evaluated both and MaterialFiles fits your workflow better

full MaterialFiles profile →

About copyparty

copyparty is a portable file server that turns almost any device into a file server with resumable uploads and downloads through any web browser, built for self hosters, homelab operators, NAS owners and anyone who wants to share files directly from their own hardware.

read the full copyparty overview →

About MaterialFiles

Material Files is a free, open source Material Design file manager for Android 5.0 and later, aimed at Android users who want to browse, manage and modify files — including files that require root access — without handing full device access to a closed source app.

read the full MaterialFiles overview →

More in Productivity & Utilities

n8n ★ 206K Excalidraw ★ 133K RustDesk ★ 124K LocalSend ★ 92K AppFlowy ★ 77K OBS Studio ★ 77K

Related comparisons

localsend vs copyparty localsend vs rclone localsend vs files localsend vs yazi localsend vs spacedrive localsend vs nextcloud localsend vs uppy localsend vs cloudreve openclaw vs khoj open-webui vs open-notebook open-webui vs khoj appflowy vs affine appflowy vs memos appflowy vs plane appflowy vs joplin mem0 vs memos n8n vs langchain n8n vs browser-use firecrawl vs browser-use n8n vs langgraph n8n vs frigate n8n vs lightpanda n8n vs proxmoxve n8n vs activepieces

More File Management & Sync projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the File Management & Sync field.

copyparty vs LocalSend copyparty vs rclone copyparty vs Files copyparty vs yazi copyparty vs Spacedrive copyparty vs Nextcloud copyparty vs uppy copyparty vs cloudreve copyparty vs superfile copyparty vs ranger copyparty vs Seafile copyparty vs PairDrop

Frequently asked questions

Is copyparty or MaterialFiles more popular?

copyparty has 46,765 GitHub stars and MaterialFiles has 9,022. copyparty has the larger community by that measure.

Are copyparty and MaterialFiles free?

Both are open source. copyparty is licensed under MIT and MaterialFiles under GPL-3.0. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between copyparty and MaterialFiles?

copyparty is written in Python and MaterialFiles in Kotlin. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, copyparty or MaterialFiles?

Choose copyparty if you want the larger community (46,765 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose MaterialFiles if its feature set, stack or GPL-3.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.