head to head · open source

copyparty vs PasswordPusher

copyparty has 46,802 GitHub stars, 1,904 forks, 252 open issues and last shipped 3 days ago. PasswordPusher has 3,202 stars, 460 forks, 105 open issues and last shipped 2 days ago. copyparty leads on adoption by 1,362% (46,802 vs 3,202 stars). copyparty is written in Python under MIT; PasswordPusher is written in Ruby under Apache-2.0. copyparty has attracted 4% as many forks as stars, PasswordPusher 14%. PasswordPusher was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 1 topic tag (file-sharing), so they are genuine substitutes rather than adjacent tools.

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 PasswordPusher ★ 3.2K category Productivity & Utilities

← all 20902 open source comparisons

Side by side

copyparty PasswordPusher
GitHub stars ★ 47K ★ 3.2K
License MIT Apache-2.0
Written in Python Ruby
Last push 2026-09-24 2026-09-25
Forks ⑂ 1.9K ⑂ 460
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 PasswordPusher if

  • You want the PasswordPusher feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the Apache-2.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Ruby
  • You evaluated both and PasswordPusher fits your workflow better

full PasswordPusher 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 PasswordPusher

PasswordPusher is an Apache 2.0 licensed Ruby web application for sharing passwords, notes, files and URLs as self deleting links that expire after a set number of views or a set duration, with audit logs recording who viewed what, and when.

read the full PasswordPusher overview →

More in Productivity & Utilities

n8n ★ 206K Excalidraw ★ 133K RustDesk ★ 125K LocalSend ★ 93K 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 PasswordPusher more popular?

copyparty has 46,802 GitHub stars and PasswordPusher has 3,202. copyparty has the larger community by that measure.

Are copyparty and PasswordPusher free?

Both are open source. copyparty is licensed under MIT and PasswordPusher under Apache-2.0. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between copyparty and PasswordPusher?

copyparty is written in Python and PasswordPusher in Ruby. 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 PasswordPusher?

Choose copyparty if you want the larger community (46,802 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose PasswordPusher if its feature set, stack or Apache-2.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.