Syncvault and Backblaze Personal solve the same problem from opposite directions: one is source-available software you can own outright for $29, the other is a subscription at $9/mo run entirely on someone else's servers.
Head to head
| Syncvault | Backblaze Personal | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | $29 once | $9/mo |
| Cost after 1 year | $29 + ~$7 storage | $108 |
| Client-side encryption | Yes | Opt-in |
| Any S3 provider | Yes | No |
| Point-in-time version browsing | Yes | Yes |
| Works with local/NAS targets | Yes | No |
| Source code | MIT, on GitHub | Closed |
What Syncvault does well
- Client-side AES-256-GCM — Key is derived from your passphrase with scrypt, never uploaded and never stored in plaintext.
- Content-addressed dedupe — Objects are keyed by SHA-256 of content, so identical or unchanged files upload exactly once.
- Point-in-time versioning — Keep the last N versions of every file and browse the backed-up tree as of any point in time to restore.
- BYO destinations — Any S3-compatible endpoint (AWS, B2, Wasabi, R2, MinIO) or a plain local/network folder, mixed per folder.
What Backblaze Personal still does better
There's a real reason Backblaze Personal costs what it does: a bigger team, broader integrations and dedicated support behind it. If that ecosystem is genuinely what you need, it's worth paying for.
Which one should you pick
If your workflow depends on Backblaze Personal's specific integrations or you'd rather not run anything yourself, stay put — that's a legitimate call. If you're comfortable owning the tool and want to stop paying $9/mo for a job your own hardware can do, Syncvault pays for itself and then some: a 100 GB backup is $29 once plus ~$7/yr of storage versus $108/yr on Backblaze — it pays for itself in about four months, then it's just bytes.
Try Syncvault — $29, once
Local backup agent that encrypts client-side and pushes to your own S3-compatible bucket or NAS.