head to head · open source

PasswordPusher vs cryfs

PasswordPusher has 3,202 GitHub stars, 460 forks, 105 open issues and last shipped 2 days ago. cryfs has 2,307 stars, 171 forks, 154 open issues and last shipped 3 days ago. PasswordPusher leads on adoption by 39% (3,202 vs 2,307 stars). PasswordPusher is written in Ruby under Apache-2.0; cryfs is written in Rust under LGPL-3.0. PasswordPusher has attracted 14% as many forks as stars, cryfs 7%. PasswordPusher was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 1 topic tag (encryption), 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.

PasswordPusher ★ 3.2K cryfs ★ 2.3K category Productivity & Utilities

← all 20902 open source comparisons

Side by side

PasswordPusher cryfs
GitHub stars ★ 3.2K ★ 2.3K
License Apache-2.0 LGPL-3.0
Written in Ruby Rust
Last push 2026-09-25 2026-09-24
Forks ⑂ 460 ⑂ 171
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick PasswordPusher if

  • You weight community size — 3.2K stars and counting
  • You want the Apache-2.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Ruby
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full PasswordPusher profile →

pick cryfs if

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

full cryfs profile →

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 →

About cryfs

CryFS is a FUSE based cryptographic filesystem written in Rust that encrypts a vault directory so it can be stored safely in cloud services such as Dropbox, iCloud, or OneDrive, and it is intended for Linux users who want their file contents, file sizes, directory structure, and metadata hidden from the storage provider rather than encrypted one file at a time.

read the full cryfs overview →

More in Productivity & Utilities

n8n ★ 206K Excalidraw ★ 133K RustDesk ★ 125K LocalSend ★ 93K AppFlowy ★ 77K OBS Studio ★ 77K

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.

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

Frequently asked questions

Is PasswordPusher or cryfs more popular?

PasswordPusher has 3,202 GitHub stars and cryfs has 2,307. PasswordPusher has the larger community by that measure.

Are PasswordPusher and cryfs free?

Both are open source. PasswordPusher is licensed under Apache-2.0 and cryfs under LGPL-3.0. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between PasswordPusher and cryfs?

PasswordPusher is written in Ruby and cryfs in Rust. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, PasswordPusher or cryfs?

Choose PasswordPusher if you want the larger community (3,202 stars) or its Apache-2.0 licence terms. Choose cryfs if its feature set, stack or LGPL-3.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.