Cyberduck vs filebrowser
Side-by-side comparison of features, pricing, ratings, and alternatives.
Cyberduck is an open‑source file transfer client that lets you browse and manage files on FTP, SFTP, WebDAV, and a wide range of cloud services. It offers a simple graphical interface for uploading, downloading, and synchronizing data across servers and cloud storage. Available for macOS and Windows, Cyberduck supports bookmarks, transfer queues, and encryption, making it a reliable tool for developers, system administrators, and power users who need a versatile, cross‑platform solution.
Filebrowser is an open‑source, web‑based file manager that you can run on any server. It provides a clean UI for browsing, uploading, and sharing files without needing a desktop client. Designed for simplicity, it lets users manage directories, set permissions, and generate shareable links directly from the browser, making collaboration easy for small groups.
- Free and open‑source
- Supports a wide range of protocols
- Simple, intuitive UI
- Cross‑platform for macOS and Windows
- Fully open‑source and free to use
- Easy to self‑host with Docker or binary
- Simple UI suitable for non‑technical users
- Fine‑grained permission controls
- No native Linux package (requires manual install)
- Limited automation compared to command‑line tools
- No built‑in file versioning
- Limited advanced collaboration features compared to SaaS solutions
- No built‑in real‑time editing of documents
- Community support only, no guaranteed SLA
More alternatives & similar tools
Alternatives to Cyberduck
View all →
Alternatives to filebrowser
View all →
The Verdict
AI-generated from listing dataFilebrowser is a self‑hosted web file manager ideal for small teams needing simple UI and fine‑grained permissions, while Cyberduck is a desktop client suited for developers needing broad protocol support and local editing.
Key differences
- •Deployment model: filebrowser runs on a server (Docker/binary), cyberduck is a desktop app for macOS/Windows.
- •Protocol support: cyberduck handles FTP/FTPS/SFTP/WebDAV and many cloud services; filebrowser only manages files stored on its own server.
- •Automation: filebrowser offers a RESTful API; cyberduck has no API.
- •Platform coverage: cyberduck lacks a native Linux package; filebrowser works on any Linux server via Docker or binary.
- •Collaboration features: filebrowser provides user accounts and audit logs; cyberduck focuses on individual file transfers.
Pricing & value
Both are free, but filebrowser adds value with self‑hosting and multi‑user permissions at no extra cost.
Ease of use / learning curve
Cyberduck offers a native graphical UI on macOS/Windows, familiar to desktop users; filebrowser requires server setup.
Features & depth
Cyberduck supports many transfer protocols and client‑side encryption; filebrowser manages only local server files.
Integrations & ecosystem
Cyberduck integrates with Amazon S3, Google Drive, Dropbox, Azure; filebrowser has no built‑in cloud integrations.
Collaboration
Filebrowser provides multiple user accounts, granular permissions, and audit logs; cyberduck is single‑user focused.
Scalability
Self‑hosted filebrowser can scale with server resources; cyberduck is limited to the local machine.
Support
Cyberduck lists email and community forum support; filebrowser only offers community support.
Choose Cyberduck if…
Developers or admins needing a desktop client with many cloud/FTP protocols and local editing.
Choose filebrowser if…
Small teams wanting a web UI, multi‑user permissions, and self‑hosted control.
Common questions
Can I automate file operations with these tools?
Filebrowser provides a RESTful API for automation; Cyberduck has no API.
Do they run on Linux?
Filebrowser runs on any Linux server via Docker or binary; Cyberduck has no native Linux package.
Which tool supports cloud storage services like S3 or Google Drive?
Cyberduck includes built‑in integrations for S3, Google Drive, Dropbox, and Azure; filebrowser does not.