CopyQ vs Clipman

CopyQ8.5Visit CClipman7.6Visit

Higher score CopyQ #2 in Clipboard Manager Software 8.5/10 Free plan Free plan✓ 2 of 4 features Visit CopyQ

vs

C Clipman #6 in Clipboard Manager Software 7.6/10 Free plan Free plan✓ 4 of 4 features Visit Clipman

• CopyQ fits best

  Open-source users across desktop platforms

• Clipman fits best

  Free users needing broad device sync

Advertiser disclosure: iTechGuides is reader-supported. Vendors can pay for top positions in our rankings and for a place on other products' pages, and we may earn a commission when you click some links. Bought places stand at the number bought; this page and our disclosure say so. Paying vendors may get a fuller, more detailed review from our editors, and that review can change their score. How we rank.

Side by side

Feature	CopyQ 8.5/10 Visit ↗	CClipman 7.6/10 Visit ↗
At a glance
Editor score	8.5	7.6
Ranking	#2 in Clipboard Manager Software	#6 in Clipboard Manager Software
Best for	Open-source users across desktop platforms	Free users needing broad device sync
Pricing model	Free	Free
Starting price	Free plan	Free plan
Free plan	✓	✓
Free trial	—	—
Deployment	Desktop	Self-hosted, Desktop, Mobile
Platforms	Windows, macOS, Linux	Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android
Support	Community, Docs	Docs
Built for	Solo, Small business	Solo, Small business
Features CopyQ 2/4 · Clipman 4/4
History search	✓	✓
Cross-device sync	Not checked yet	✓ (best)
Snippets	Not checked yet	✓ (best)
Rich text support	✓	✓
Specs
History limit	Not checked yet	Not checked yet
Supported platforms	Linux, Windows, macOS	Windows, macOS, Linux, Android, iPhone, iPad
Our review
Pros	Stores text, HTML, images, and custom clipboard formats Adds tabs, filtering, notes, tags, and item editing Supports scripting, command-line access, and custom commands	Free, open-source access across desktop and mobile platforms Searchable history with pinned, named, grouped, and sortable entries Encrypted synchronization with an optional self-hosted server
Cons	Focuses on Windows, macOS, and Linux desktop platforms Advanced automation may require scripting or command-line knowledge Its broad feature set may exceed simple clipboard-history needs	Synchronization relies on shared folders or a self-hosted server Clipboard history is stored locally on the device Advanced workflows may require managing many organization options
Our verdict	CopyQ is an open-source desktop clipboard manager for users who want more control than a basic clipboard history utility provides. It monitors the system clipboard and stores copied text, HTML, images, and custom formats across Windows,… Read the review →	Clipman is an open-source clipboard manager for Windows, macOS, Linux, Android, iPhone, and iPad. It stores clipboard history locally and supports text, links, rich text, images, and files. Users can search, edit, name, group, pin, sort,… Read the review →

Strengths and trade-offs

• CopyQ — where it wins

  • Stores text, HTML, images, and custom clipboard formats
  • Adds tabs, filtering, notes, tags, and item editing
  • Supports scripting, command-line access, and custom commands

  Where it doesn't

  • Focuses on Windows, macOS, and Linux desktop platforms
  • Advanced automation may require scripting or command-line knowledge
  • Its broad feature set may exceed simple clipboard-history needs

• Clipman — where it wins

  • Free, open-source access across desktop and mobile platforms
  • Searchable history with pinned, named, grouped, and sortable entries
  • Encrypted synchronization with an optional self-hosted server

  Where it doesn't

  • Synchronization relies on shared folders or a self-hosted server
  • Clipboard history is stored locally on the device
  • Advanced workflows may require managing many organization options

• CopyQ8.5/10 · Free plan

  A flexible, cross-platform clipboard history tool for users who want control and automation.

  Visit CopyQFull verdict →
• CClipman7.6/10 · Free plan

  A broad, free clipboard manager with encrypted sync and optional self-hosting.

  Visit ClipmanFull verdict →