/jump to repo

Repos Recent Bookmarks Watched Notes Tags Discover Compare Stats GitHub

Repository brief

syncthing/syncthing

Read the upstream summary on the left, browse the cached forks below it, and load each fork comparison into the right-hand panel.

Cached analysis

cached 2026-03-30T11:51:34.584Z

3mo ago

syncthing/syncthing

Syncthing is a large, active Go-based open source project for continuous file synchronization between two or more computers. It emphasizes data safety, security, ease of use, automation, broad platform availability, and individual ownership of syncing.

Loading tags...

Stars81,259

Forks4,977

Default branchmain

Last pushed2026-03-30T04:38:36Z

Recommended shortcuts

Jump straight into Discofork's strongest cached fork picks, or open a compare view in one click.

Forks

Choose a fork to inspect

10 of 10 fork briefs

Maintenance:

Magnitude:

Sort:

Selected

Choose this fork if you want a materially different Syncthing experience, especially around the next-generation GUI and customized behavior. Choose upstream if you want the safest path, fastest access to fixes, and the least integration risk.

Prefer upstream unless you explicitly need this fork's older baseline or custom modifications and are prepared to maintain a large divergence yourself.

Do not adopt this fork as a general-purpose Syncthing base. It looks stale, heavily stripped, and far behind upstream; only choose it if you specifically want a placeholder or cleanup branch.

Prefer upstream unless you already rely on this fork’s legacy behavior. This fork adds a few concrete UI and runtime fixes, but its age and drift make it a poor default choice for new adopters.

Choose this fork only if you need its specific old tweaks and are prepared to own a long-dead codebase. For most adopters, upstream Syncthing is the clearly better choice because this fork is far behind and likely missing years of fixes and improvements.

Prefer this fork only if you specifically need its older GUI/API behavior. For most adopters, upstream is the better choice because this fork is stale, materially behind, and likely missing important safety and maintenance fixes.

Prefer this fork only if encrypted filenames are the main goal and you are comfortable maintaining a very old, heavily diverged codebase. For most adopters, upstream is the safer choice because this fork is stale and missing years of fixes and maintenance.

Choose this fork only if you want a heavily customized BasicSync-oriented base and are prepared to own major upstream drift. If you want current Syncthing behavior with minimal maintenance risk, upstream is the safer choice.

Prefer upstream if you want the safest, most current Syncthing. Prefer this fork only if the next-gen GUI direction is the main reason you are adopting and you are willing to absorb the maintenance and rebasing cost.

Choose this fork if you want the custom UI and internal experimentation it seems to be pursuing. Choose upstream if you want current fixes, lower risk, and a more stable maintenance path.

Fork comparison

MobiusSync/syncthing

70/100

active

significant_divergence

Choose this fork if you want a materially different Syncthing experience, especially around the next-generation GUI and customized behavior. Choose upstream if you want the safest path, fastest access to fixes, and the least integration risk.

Likely purpose

A long-lived fork for users who want a more customized or next-generation Syncthing experience, especially around UI modernization and altered runtime behavior, rather than strict upstream parity.

Best for

Users who value a redesigned or experimental Syncthing UI over upstream stability.; Teams willing to trade upstream parity for fork-specific behavior or workflows.; Adopters comfortable tracking a divergent codebase and validating changes themselves.; People evaluating a fork as a product variant rather than a drop-in replacement.

Additional features

A new `next-gen-gui` frontend stack, indicating a substantially different web UI direction.
Ongoing GUI/vendor modernization and dependency restructuring, suggesting a refreshed client experience.
Fork-specific database and transaction changes, which may target different sync/storage behavior or scaling characteristics.
API and protocol-related edits that suggest the fork may expose or depend on modified internal workflows.
Custom build and workflow adjustments in GitHub Actions and dev tooling, implying a different maintenance/release pipeline.
Expands API, schema, or SDK surface area for downstream integrations and generated clients.

Missing features

The fork is 204 commits behind upstream, so it likely lacks a meaningful amount of recent Syncthing bug fixes, protocol hardening, and packaging work.
Upstream’s very recent fixes around protocol safety, SQLite behavior, systemd support, and API correctness are not present in this fork snapshot.
Because the fork diverges heavily, upstream GUI wrapper, documentation, and contributor workflow improvements may be harder to consume or no longer aligned.
The large divergence makes upstream-compatible upgrade paths and maintenance expectations less straightforward.
It trails upstream by 204 commits, so some recent upstream features and fixes are likely not present yet.

Strengths

Likely appeals to users who want a fresher or more experimental UI.
May include fork-specific fixes or behavior that upstream has not adopted yet.
Still appears to preserve the core Syncthing sync engine while extending surrounding workflows.
Active enough to show recent changes rather than a frozen abandonware fork.

Risks

Large divergence increases the chance of merge pain, regressions, and slower security/bug-fix uptake.
A separate UI stack can fragment documentation, troubleshooting, and extension compatibility.
Being behind upstream means adopters may miss fixes that matter for data safety and protocol correctness.
The fork’s maintenance burden is likely higher than upstream's because it touches many subsystems at once.

syncthing/syncthing · Discofork