Cloud storage decision

Ente Photos

Prefer self-hosting the existing open-source Ente repo rather than reimplementing; the official repository provides the core loop, so run their code or host it instead of building from scratch.

Visit website
Subscription$1/month ✓ verified
Initial build6 hours
Monthly upkeep10 hours + $6
Evidence1/2 runs agree

What a replacement has to do

  • Client-side encrypt photos, upload encrypted blobs, store and serve encrypted objects, provide web UI for browsing thumbnails and generating share links

What it still won’t have

  • Official audited encryption provenance and published protocol details
  • Polished cross-platform native apps (Android/iOS/Desktop) and on-device ML features
  • Their multi-cloud 3-replica storage strategy
  • Human support and managed family-plan billing
  • Public roadmap and CI maintained by the Ente team

What remains hard

  • Product polish and ongoing maintenance
Read the build prompt

First-year cost

Keep paying

Paying ischeaper in year one.

On cash alone, building overtakes the subscription at 8 seats.

Paid seatsseats

Money you would actually spend

Keep paying

Subscription price × seats × 12

Build it

AI build APIs + hosting

Time you would spend

What you would spend

What we assumed

The verdict above measures whether you could build it. This one is only about money.

Runnable build prompt

Not run yet
Build a minimal self-hosted Ente-like photo backup service using: React web UI, a small Node.js/Express API, PostgreSQL for metadata, and S3-compatible object storage. Implement: (1) client-side encryption of photos before upload (WebCrypto AES-GCM), (2) authenticated upload endpoints that store encrypted blobs and metadata, (3) background thumbnail generation service producing web-friendly previews, (4) web UI to authenticate, list albums, view thumbnails, and download encrypted originals, (5) password-protected expiring public link generation that maps to stored objects. Out of scope: native mobile apps, multi-cloud triple-replication, on-device ML search, audited cryptographic review. Include error handling, input validation, and automated tests for upload/download, encryption round-trips, and link expiration.
How we checked5 sources · 1/2 runs agreed · evidence score 99

How the score was reached

  • Self-host verdict base92
  • An open-source build was found+5
  • 5 cited sources+3
  • Price verified on pricing page+3
  • Evidence score99

The base comes from the verdict. Everything under it is a check that either happened or did not, and each one is a fact frozen in this record rather than a judgement made at render time — so the same evidence always produces the same number.

How scoring works →

Cited sources · 5

Every page the run actually retrieved.

Integrity checks

What held up, and what did not.

✓ Price read off the page! 1 of 2 runs agreed; the verdict is the middle of them✓ Citations limited to fetched pages! 1 moat recorded