FilePizza vs OneSwarm

Compare features, pricing, and capabilities to find which solution is best for your needs.

FilePizza icon

FilePizza

FilePizza offers free peer-to-peer file transfers directly in your web browser. Simply select a file, and a unique link is generated for sharing, enabling recipients to download directly from your browser without needing uploads to a central server. by Alex Kern, Neeraj Baid

Open Source
Platforms: Online Self-Hosted
Screenshots:
VS
OneSwarm icon

OneSwarm

OneSwarm was a file-sharing client focused on privacy and anonymity, designed to operate within a darknet or a friend-to-friend network.

Open Source
Platforms: Mac OS X Windows Linux Discontinued

Comparison Summary

FilePizza and OneSwarm are both powerful solutions in their space. FilePizza offers filepizza offers free peer-to-peer file transfers directly in your web browser. simply select a file, and a unique link is generated for sharing, enabling recipients to download directly from your browser without needing uploads to a central server., while OneSwarm provides oneswarm was a file-sharing client focused on privacy and anonymity, designed to operate within a darknet or a friend-to-friend network.. Compare their features and pricing to find the best match for your needs.

Pros & Cons Comparison

FilePizza

FilePizza

Analysis & Comparison

Advantages

Free and open source
No software installation required
Direct peer-to-peer transfer
Increased privacy as files are not stored on a server
Encryption via WebRTC

Limitations

Sender's browser must remain open for download to complete
Limited features compared to dedicated file sharing services
Performance depends on network conditions of both users
Not suitable for long-term hosting or sharing with offline users
OneSwarm

OneSwarm

Analysis & Comparison

Advantages

Strong focus on user privacy and anonymity through friend-to-friend network.
Combines BitTorrent efficiency with privacy features.
Ad-free and designed to be lightweight.
Decentralized architecture reduces reliance on central servers.
Configurable and extensible through plugins.

Limitations

Network size and content availability are highly dependent on user's social network.
Building a useful network can be challenging and time-consuming.
Project is discontinued, meaning no further updates or security patches.
Limited discoverability of content compared to open P2P networks.
Potential compatibility and security issues on modern systems due to lack of support.

Compare with Others

Explore more comparisons and alternatives

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare
Advertisement

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare

Compare features and reviews between these alternatives.

Compare