CryptPad vs Internxt
Both are alternatives to Google Drive. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as Internxt vs CryptPad — same comparison, one verdict.
CryptPad can run on your own server and Internxt cannot — the choice is between operating it yourself and paying someone else to keep it up.
CryptPad
End-to-end-encrypted collaborative documents where the server never sees your content.
CryptPad is a privacy-first collaboration suite built around end-to-end encryption: documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and more are encrypted in your browser, so a self-hosted or public server stores only ciphertext and cannot read your content. It supports real-time co-editing, shared folders, and a range of app types, and it is AGPL-3.0 licensed and self-hostable via Docker or a Debian install. Developed by XWiki SAS with public-interest funding, it also runs a free public instance at cryptpad.fr. It is the strongest choice when confidentiality is the priority; the trade-off is that it is a distinct web workspace rather than a drop-in Microsoft-format editor.
Internxt
Open-source, zero-knowledge encrypted storage with lifetime plans.
Internxt is an open-source, zero-knowledge cloud storage service — every file is end-to-end encrypted with AES-256 (and, since 2026, post-quantum Kyber), and the code is public on GitHub. It's a hosted service rather than something you self-host, so it sits between Nextcloud's full ownership and Dropbox's convenience: open, encrypted, EU-based storage with zero setup. There's a 10GB free tier and one-time lifetime plans if you'd rather not pay monthly.
Side by side
10 points of comparison, every one read from a verified field. Green marks the side that wins a row outright. A dash means we do not hold that fact — never that it is zero.
| CryptPad | Internxt | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty ScoreOur transparent 0–100 composite for data ownership and exit cost. | 92 | 68 |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Local-first data | Yes | No |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Pricing | Free / self-host; free public instance at cryptpad.fr | 10GB free; 200GB ~€3.49/mo; 2TB ~€8.99/mo; lifetime plans from ~€135 one-time |
| RAM to run it wellThe figure that actually matters, not the vendor's minimum. | 2 GB for a small instance | — |
| Realistic running costWhat the box costs each month if you run it yourself. | $12–20/mo on a small VPS | — |
| Setup timeHonest first-install estimate, not the marketing quickstart. | 2 hours, and the two-domain requirement is the hard part | — |
| Ongoing maintenanceThe part nobody budgets for. | Moderate. Version pruning is a job you have to schedule. | — |
CryptPad edges it on the Sovereignty Score, but the right pick depends on the trade-offs below.
Weighing both against staying on Google Drive? Is Google Drive free? What it actually costs →
CryptPad
Strengths
- +AGPL-3.0 licensed and self-hostable via Docker or Debian, so you can own the whole stack
- +End-to-end encryption means the server stores only encrypted data and cannot read your documents
- +Real-time collaborative documents, spreadsheets, presentations, and shared drives in the browser
- +A free public instance (cryptpad.fr) lets you try it with no setup
- +Actively maintained by XWiki SAS with sustained public-interest funding
Trade-offs
- −It is a browser-based encrypted workspace, not a full desktop suite or a drop-in Microsoft-format editor
- −Compatibility with complex Microsoft documents is more limited than ONLYOFFICE or LibreOffice
- −The encryption model means account recovery and some integrations work differently from conventional suites
- −Self-hosting requires running a server, and encrypted real-time editing is heavier than plain document storage
Internxt
Strengths
- +Open-source apps; zero-knowledge AES-256 plus post-quantum encryption
- +EU-based (GDPR), privacy-first
- +Free tier and one-time lifetime options
Trade-offs
- −A hosted service — you don't self-host it
- −Newer and smaller than Dropbox; fewer integrations
- −Desktop sync less mature than the incumbents
Which one fits you
The trade-offs above, turned into a decision. Find the line that describes your team.
Choose CryptPad
if you would rather run it on your own hardware, and your data should stay on machines you control, and aGPL-3.0 licensed and self-hostable via Docker or Debian, so you can own the whole stack.
Choose Internxt
if open-source apps; zero-knowledge AES-256 plus post-quantum encryption.
Neither, yet
if both carry a real cost you should weigh first — it is a browser-based encrypted workspace, not a full desktop suite or a drop-in Microsoft-format editor, and a hosted service — you don't self-host it. If either of those is a dealbreaker for your team, the shortlist is wrong rather than the choice.
What it takes to run these yourself
Real requirements and honest running costs, not the vendor quickstart.
CryptPad vs Internxt — common questions
Is CryptPad a better fit than Internxt for cloud storage & sync?
It depends on what you are optimising for, and the honest split is this: CryptPad scores 92 to Internxt's 68 on data ownership and exit cost, so it is the safer choice if you care about being able to leave. Internxt earns its place on a different axis — open-source apps; zero-knowledge AES-256 plus post-quantum encryption. Neither is a wrong answer for every team; the table above is the actual comparison.
What happens if we want to switch later?
CryptPad keeps its data local or in open formats, so leaving is an export rather than a negotiation. Internxt keeps your data on its own infrastructure, which is the part to plan for: confirm the export path before you commit, not when you are already trying to leave.
Can I self-host CryptPad?
CryptPad can be self-hosted; Internxt cannot, so it stays on the vendor's infrastructure whatever you do.
Are CryptPad and Internxt both alternatives to Google Drive?
Yes — both appear in our Google Drive comparison, which is why they are worth putting side by side. People usually arrive here already having decided to move off Google Drive and now choosing between the two replacements, which is a narrower and much easier question.
More Google Drive head-to-heads
More cloud storage & sync comparisons
Related alternative guides
Facts verified 2026-09-17. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.