When comparing GNU Privacy Guard vs Cryptomator, the Slant community recommends GNU Privacy Guard for most people. In the question“What are the best file encryption tools?” GNU Privacy Guard is ranked 1st while Cryptomator is ranked 7th. The most important reason people chose GNU Privacy Guard is:
GPG works on OS X, Linux, and Windows with [extensive selection of wrappers](https://www.gnupg.org/related_software/frontends.html).
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
GPG works on OS X, Linux, and Windows with extensive selection of wrappers.
Pro Multiple types of encryption algorithms
GPG supports public key cryptography (RSA EIGamal, DSA), symmetrical key algorithms (Blowfish, AES, IDEA, etc), cryptographic hash functions (RIPEMD, SHA), and compression (ZIP, ZLIB, BZIP2).
Pro Volume and individual file encryption
With GPG you can encrypt you whole volume or files individually.
Pro Supports paired keys
Allows for encrypted communication.
Pro Supports expiring signatures
GPG keys by default expire after a set amount of time. The amount can be changed and this feature can be turned off.
Pro Both CLI and GUI versions available
GPG can be installed as a command line tool, or you can choose between several different GUI frontends available for it.
Pro Free and open source
Pro Transparent encryption
Pro AES individual file encryption
No accounts. No backdoors.
Pro Passphrase bruteforce protection (scrypt)
Pro Virtual hard drive file access
Drag and drop.
Pro Fast encryption and decryption
Available for Windows, Mac and Linux on desktop and iOS, Android for mobile.
Pro Works with any cloud platform
Works with any cloud-based services, including Dropbox and Google Drive.
Con It may be hard to find a GUI frontend that suits your needs
If you decide not to use the CLI version of GPG, it may be hard to find a GPG GUI version that suits your needs simply because of the sheer number of different versions available.
Con Android version is paid
Con Bugs with deleting of files
Sometimes files cannot be deleted and there is no working solution/fix available yet
Con Current WebDAV is a buggy on Windows
The used WebDAV implemention shows wrong available capacity and has a limitation in the file size. The developers are aware of these problems and working on a better solution.
Con Compatible with Android versions 4.3 and up only
Con Slower speeds
Encypting speeds are slower then regular uploads, larger files particularly video files often cannot complete transfer without errors.
Con No camera upload functionality
Cannot automatically back up photos on mobile devices replacing the need for Google drive or iOS fully. User then has to go and either manually select photos for upload or use cloud service and then encrypt defeating the purpose on mobile clients.