head to head · open source

rclone vs MaterialFiles

rclone has 59,878 GitHub stars, 5,418 forks, 1,273 open issues and last shipped yesterday. MaterialFiles has 9,022 stars, 738 forks, 611 open issues and last shipped 2 days ago. rclone leads on adoption by 564% (59,878 vs 9,022 stars). rclone is written in Go under MIT; MaterialFiles is written in Kotlin under GPL-3.0. rclone has attracted 9% as many forks as stars, MaterialFiles 8%. rclone 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.

rclone ★ 60K MaterialFiles ★ 9.0K category Productivity & Utilities

← all 20902 open source comparisons

Side by side

rclone MaterialFiles
GitHub stars ★ 60K ★ 9.0K
License MIT GPL-3.0
Written in Go Kotlin
Last push 2026-09-21 2026-09-20
Forks ⑂ 5.4K ⑂ 738
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick rclone if

  • You weight community size — 60K stars and counting
  • You want the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches Go
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full rclone 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 rclone

Rclone is an MIT licensed, Go based command line program that syncs files and directories to and from cloud storage providers, built for anyone who needs one tool for many backends instead of a separate client for every service.

read the full rclone 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 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.

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

Frequently asked questions

Is rclone or MaterialFiles more popular?

rclone has 59,878 GitHub stars and MaterialFiles has 9,022. rclone has the larger community by that measure.

Are rclone and MaterialFiles free?

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

What is the difference between rclone and MaterialFiles?

rclone is written in Go 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, rclone or MaterialFiles?

Choose rclone if you want the larger community (59,878 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose MaterialFiles if its feature set, stack or GPL-3.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.