honest comparison
Pako vs GitHub.
We love GitHub for code, and we're not trying to replace it there — that's a network-effect war nobody new wins. Pako plants its flag where Git and GitHub are genuinely weak: huge binary assets, file locking, and the artists who own them.
| Capability | Pako | GitHub |
|---|---|---|
| Source code & PRs | Solid, not the headline | Best in class |
| Huge binary assets | Native, terabyte-scale | LFS workaround |
| Exclusive locking | First-class | LFS locks, limited |
| Egress / bandwidth | Free | LFS bandwidth metered |
| Asset previews | Preview-first | Limited for binaries |
| Ownership | Independent | Owned by Microsoft |
| Ecosystem & integrations | Young, growing | Vast |
the verdict
Keep your code on GitHub if you like. Put the heavy stuff — the levels, the bakes, the datasets — where it's a first-class citizen, with locks and previews and no bandwidth meter. For many teams the answer is 'both', and that's fine.
when to stay on GitHub
GitHub's ecosystem, Actions, and community are unmatched, and for a pure-code open-source project it's the obvious home. Pako is the place for the assets that don't fit there — not a wholesale replacement.
keep comparing
Other breakdowns
Try it on your heaviest repo.
Start free in minutes. If Pako isn't faster and cheaper for your assets, keep what you have.