Immich vs LibrePhotos
Both are alternatives to Google Photos. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as LibrePhotos vs Immich — same comparison, one verdict.
Both are photos & media tools with the same broad shape, but Immich scores 94 against LibrePhotos's 80 on data ownership and exit cost — the gap is in how easily you could leave.
Immich
TOP PICKA self-hosted photo and video backup that feels like Google Photos.
Immich is an open-source, self-hosted photo and video platform built specifically as a Google Photos-style experience you run yourself. Its mobile apps back up your camera roll automatically in the background, and the web app offers timeline browsing, albums, sharing, map view, and on-device-style machine learning for face grouping and object/text search. Your photos are stored as ordinary files on your own server, so you keep full ownership; the trade-off is that you operate the stack (server, database, and backups) yourself.
LibrePhotos
A permissively licensed, fully self-hosted photo manager.
LibrePhotos is a self-hosted photo management service, originally inspired by the discontinued Google PhotoScan/Google Photos experience, offering timeline browsing, face recognition, object and scene tagging, and search over your own library. Its MIT license makes it the most permissively licensed option here, and it is a community-driven project. It is capable but less polished than Immich or PhotoPrism, with a smaller community and a slower development pace.
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.
| Immich | LibrePhotos | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty ScoreOur transparent 0–100 composite for data ownership and exit cost. | 94 | 80 |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first data | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Pricing | Free and open-source (self-host); you provide the hardware and storage | Free and open-source (self-host) |
| RAM to run it wellThe figure that actually matters, not the vendor's minimum. | 8 GB | 6 GB, and it will use more during face recognition |
| Realistic running costWhat the box costs each month if you run it yourself. | $25–45/mo for a 500 GB library, or effectively free on a home machine with the storage you already have | $30–50/mo for a moderate library |
| Setup timeHonest first-install estimate, not the marketing quickstart. | 2 hours, plus a long first ingest | 2 hours |
| Ongoing maintenanceThe part nobody budgets for. | Active. Immich releases frequently and has historically shipped breaking changes; read the release notes before every upgrade rather than after. | Active. The project is volunteer-driven and moves in bursts. |
Immich is Macrostack's recommended Google Photos alternative, so it's our pick here.
Weighing both against staying on Google Photos? Is Google Photos free? What it actually costs →
Immich
Strengths
- +Closest Google Photos-like experience among the open options
- +Automatic background camera-roll backup on iOS and Android
- +Fully open-source (AGPL-3.0), backed by FUTO
- +Photos stored as normal files on hardware you own
- +Very active development and a large community
Trade-offs
- −You run and back up the server, database, and storage
- −Fast release pace means occasional breaking changes to watch for on upgrade
- −Machine-learning features (face/object search) want a few GB of RAM to run smoothly
- −No hosted option — self-hosting is the only path
LibrePhotos
Strengths
- +Permissive MIT license
- +Face recognition, tagging, and search on your own server
- +Photos remain files on hardware you own
- +Community-driven and free to run
Trade-offs
- −Smaller community and slower development than Immich or PhotoPrism
- −Rougher, less polished interface
- −Resource-hungry during initial scanning and training
- −No first-party mobile backup app as seamless as Immich's
Which one fits you
The trade-offs above, turned into a decision. Find the line that describes your team.
Choose Immich
if a lower exit cost matters more to you than any single feature, and closest Google Photos-like experience among the open options.
Choose LibrePhotos
if permissive MIT license.
Neither, yet
if both carry a real cost you should weigh first — you run and back up the server, database, and storage, and smaller community and slower development than Immich or PhotoPrism. 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.
Immich vs LibrePhotos — common questions
Is Immich a better fit than LibrePhotos for photos & media?
It depends on what you are optimising for, and the honest split is this: Immich scores 94 to LibrePhotos's 80 on data ownership and exit cost, so it is the safer choice if you care about being able to leave. LibrePhotos earns its place on a different axis — permissive MIT license. Neither is a wrong answer for every team; the table above is the actual comparison.
What happens if we want to switch later?
Immich keeps its data local or in open formats, so leaving is an export rather than a negotiation. LibrePhotos is still self-hostable, so the files stay on your server either way — but it is not local-first by design, so check what its export produces before you rely on it.
Can I self-host Immich or LibrePhotos?
Both can be self-hosted. The difference is what it costs you in time rather than whether it is possible — see the setup and maintenance rows above.
Are Immich and LibrePhotos both alternatives to Google Photos?
Yes — both appear in our Google Photos comparison, which is why they are worth putting side by side. People usually arrive here already having decided to move off Google Photos and now choosing between the two replacements, which is a narrower and much easier question.
More Google Photos head-to-heads
Related alternative guides
Facts verified 2026-07-05. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.