Pingvin Share is a self-hosted file-sharing service - upload, get a link, expire - a WeTransfer alternative. Cotton is a full file cloud where sharing is one feature among storage, previews, and recovery. This is not a scoreboard with fake certainty; it is a product-fit comparison for self-hosted file cloud decisions.
Pingvin Share is a verb: you go there to turn a file into an expiring link, or to collect uploads via a reverse share. Cotton is a noun: a place your files live, with folders, versions, snapshots, and previews. Sharing with expiry is one Cotton feature, not the entire product.
Pingvin stores shares unencrypted at rest - its encryption request was closed as not planned - and its job ends at handing over a download link, with no media preview library. Cotton encrypts every chunk by default, adds client-side E2E folders, and renders waveform, 3D, HEIC, mobile PDF, and seekable video.
Pingvin is genuinely lighter - one container with an embedded database, no Postgres. Fair flag: the original repository is archived, and active work continues in the community fork Pingvin Share X; Cotton is one actively developed product, one image plus Postgres.
Pick Pingvin Share when all you want is to send a file that expires, or to receive files from people without giving them accounts. Pick Cotton when you want a place your files actually live - and sharing is just one of the things it does.
Cotton does not need to beat every long-established ecosystem on every surface. The useful comparison is narrower: storage behavior, privacy posture, recovery model, deployment shape, and product focus.
Cotton stores file content as chunks and manifests, so deduplication, verification, versions, snapshots, and cleanup share one mental model.
Compression and AES-GCM encryption sit in the normal storage path; the site does not sell isolated crypto speed as user-visible ingest speed.
Snapshots, versions, trash, and reclaim are positioned as ordinary file-cloud workflows, not emergency-only backend chores.
Cotton deliberately stays narrower than broad collaboration suites: files, previews, sharing, WebDAV, recovery, and operator visibility.
Cotton is the cleaner story when files, previews, shares, snapshots, versions, WebDAV, passkeys, admin diagnostics, and a compact Docker/Postgres deployment are the main problem.
People who just need to send expiring files or collect uploads without accounts.
You want a focused self-hosted file cloud with content-addressed storage, streaming crypto, snapshots, previews, WebDAV, sharing, passkeys, and a compact Docker deployment.
You need pure ephemeral file sending and reverse-share intake, in one tiny container more than the Cotton storage-engine and recovery-model strengths.
Cotton is not trying to be a bigger suite than Pingvin Share. It is trying to be the sharper file cloud when the file engine itself is the product decision.
If you want a persistent file cloud where sharing is one feature among many, Cotton is the fit.
Last reviewed June 2026. Every line below links to its receipt - the actual issue, doc, or commit it came from. Competitors move fast; if a link goes stale, open an issue and we fix it.
Receipts
Not always. Cotton is a focused file cloud, not a clone of every app and integration in the older ecosystems. It fits best when file storage, previews, sharing, snapshots, WebDAV, security, and deployment simplicity are the main problem.
Because people searching for a self-hosted file cloud often start with the familiar names. The comparison makes the tradeoff explicit instead of pretending every product has the same goal.
If all you want is to send files that expire or to collect uploads from others without accounts, Pingvin Share does exactly that in one small container. Cotton is the fit when you want a persistent file cloud where sharing is one feature among many.