head to head · open source

ranger vs cyberduck

ranger has 17,405 GitHub stars, 942 forks, 896 open issues and last shipped 11 days ago. cyberduck has 4,788 stars, 369 forks, 506 open issues and last shipped yesterday. ranger leads on adoption by 264% (17,405 vs 4,788 stars). ranger is written in Python under GPL-3.0; cyberduck is written in Java under GPL-3.0. ranger has attracted 5% as many forks as stars, cyberduck 8%. cyberduck 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.

ranger ★ 17K cyberduck ★ 4.8K category Productivity & Utilities

← all 20902 open source comparisons

Side by side

ranger cyberduck
GitHub stars ★ 17K ★ 4.8K
License GPL-3.0 GPL-3.0
Written in Python Java
Last push 2026-09-09 2026-09-19
Forks ⑂ 942 ⑂ 369
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick ranger if

  • You weight community size — 17K stars and counting
  • You want the GPL-3.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Python
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full ranger profile →

pick cyberduck if

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

full cyberduck profile →

About ranger

Ranger is a console file manager with VI key bindings, written in Python and released under the GNU General Public License version 3, for terminal users who want to browse, preview, and manipulate files without leaving a Unix shell.

read the full ranger overview →

About cyberduck

Cyberduck is a libre FTP, SFTP, WebDAV, Amazon S3, Backblaze B2, Microsoft Azure & OneDrive and OpenStack Swift file transfer client for macOS and Windows, released under the GNU General Public License version 3 and developed at the iterate ch/cyberduck repository.

read the full cyberduck overview →

More in Productivity & Utilities

n8n ★ 205K Excalidraw ★ 132K RustDesk ★ 124K LocalSend ★ 92K AppFlowy ★ 77K OBS Studio ★ 76K

Related comparisons

localsend vs rclone localsend vs copyparty 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.

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

Frequently asked questions

Is ranger or cyberduck more popular?

ranger has 17,405 GitHub stars and cyberduck has 4,788. ranger has the larger community by that measure.

Are ranger and cyberduck free?

Both are open source. ranger is licensed under GPL-3.0 and cyberduck under GPL-3.0. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between ranger and cyberduck?

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

Which should I choose, ranger or cyberduck?

Choose ranger if you want the larger community (17,405 stars) or its GPL-3.0 licence terms. Choose cyberduck if its feature set, stack or GPL-3.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.