Add to Chrome
Add to Edge
Add to Firefox
Add to Opera
Add to Brave
Add to SafariWhen comparing CopyQ vs ClipAngel, the Slant community recommends CopyQ for most people. In the question“What are the best clipboard managers for Windows?” CopyQ is ranked 2nd while ClipAngel is ranked 7th.
Specs
Question Ranking
Pros
Pro Simple to setup
Pro Easy to use
Pro Free
Pro Add notes or tags to items
Most effective with stacks that don't automatically delete the oldest members, tags and notes allow you to use CopyQ as a personal database for important information with easy access and retrieval.
Pro Cross-platform and cross-DE
CopyQ supports all major Linux desktop environments (including KDE Plasma, GNOME, Xfce, etc.), Windows and MacOS X 10.9+.
Pro Can sort and store based on content type
Built-in support for text, HTML, images or any other custom formats, allowing for type-based clip stacks that each have their own custom actions (open images in a photo editor, open URLs in a browser, etc.)
Pro Browse and filter items in history
Quickly locate that snippet you copied months ago but don't recall precisely what it was.
Pro Versalite and feature rich
At first you don't see it, but then you find more and more features using tooltips everywhere.
Pro Unlimited storage of clips possible
Pro CTRL+ENTER pastes selected or all text as plain text
Pro Great support
All bugs are being fixed very quick.
Pro Supports comparing clipboards
Can be used to compare different clipboards.
Pro Favourite clips possible
Pro Shows image fragments in list
When doing copy-paste with many images, quick visual search in list is very important. ClipAngel shows representative fragment for every image clip in list without rescale. So it is very easy to find proper image.
Pro HTML native formatting view
HTML clips by default are shown in native formatting.
Pro Good preview of snippets (incl. images)
Pro Clip concatenation
You can join any number of clips very quickly.
Cons
Con impossible to quit/start copyq via script
Con In linux, it sometimes does not react to shortcuts
Also buggy when hiding.
Con Sometimes copies filtered entries in between selection
Con Can't export images in bulk
Con Slow with many entries
Con Slow to place selected content on editor
Takes a while to place the selected text into the editor.
Con Classical User Interface
User interface seems old.
Con Bitdefender may see it as malware
Con Not enough clips on display in window
Con Big memory consumption
It takes up to 80-90MB of RAM.
