copyparty vs Filestash
Both are self-hosted file transfer - web-based file managers projects. This page compares how well each one is actually maintained — the part you cannot see from a feature list.
| copyparty | Filestash | |
|---|---|---|
| Health score | 85/100 | 62/100 |
| Commits (11 mo) | 667 | 422 |
| Commits (last 3 mo) | 123 | 92 |
| Stars | 47k | 15k |
| Latest release | 19 Sept 2026 | none tagged |
| Licence | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Built with | Python | Docker |
| Typical RAM | 2 GB | 1 GB |
copyparty
Portable file server with accelerated resumable uploads, deduplication, WebDAV, FTP, zeroconf, media indexer, video thumbnails, audio transcoding, and write-only folders, in a single file with no mandatory dependencies.
High commit volume, frequent releases and growing activity.
Commit activity more than 71% of tracked projects; popularity more than 96%. How this is calculated.
Commits, last 11 months
Filestash
Web file manager that lets you manage your data anywhere it is located: FTP, SFTP, WebDAV, Git, S3, Minio, Dropbox, or Google Drive.
Maintained, but at a slower pace than the leaders in its category.
Commit activity more than 60% of tracked projects; popularity more than 84%. How this is calculated.
Commits, last 11 months
How to read this
Everything above is measured, not opinion: commit counts and release dates come from the public repositories, and the health score ranks each project against all 1352 projects we track. Read the full method.
What this comparison deliberately does not do is tell you which has the better feature set. Maintenance health tells you which project will still be receiving security fixes in two years. Decide that first, then compare features on the projects that survive the filter.
See every option in this category: self-hosted file transfer - web-based file managers.