BetterFileTransfer vs Smash
Smash advertises no file size limit, which is true in a narrow sense: anything over 2 GB goes into a queue. It also advertises end-to-end encryption, which its own technical documentation contradicts.
At a glance
Limits and prices are set by each service and change without telling us, and a figure we could not confirm reads "not confirmed" rather than being estimated. If something here is out of date or simply wrong, email contact@betterfiletransfer.com and we will correct the row. Say where you saw it and we will check it against their own pages the same way we checked the rest.
Smash is a French transfer service with the boldest headline in the category: no file size limit, free, no sign-up. That is a genuinely different offer, and it deserves to be read carefully rather than dismissed.
The mechanism behind it is throughput rather than size. Smash's own help centre puts it plainly: transfers larger than 2 GB are not prioritised and are placed in a waiting queue. So you can send 40 GB for nothing. You cannot send it quickly.
What Smash does well
For a large, non-urgent send by somebody who will not pay for anything, the queue is a fair trade and nobody else offers it. Password protection is included on the free tier, which is more than WeTransfer or Dropbox manage. There are no ads. Recipients are emailed directly with no cap on how many.
Hosting is described as mainly within the European Union, which is a softer commitment than SwissTransfer's but still more than most.
Where the two differ
- Speed versus size. We cap the size and never queue you. Smash removes the cap and queues you. Which is better depends entirely on whether anybody is waiting for the file. Our page on how long an upload actually takes is the arithmetic behind that choice.
- The clock. Smash's pricing page says up to 7 days on the free tier; its help centre says the default is 7 with a maximum availability of 14. Ours is stated once and does what it says.
- Their own numbers disagree. The Pro tier is advertised as unlimited per transfer on the pricing page and as 250 GB per transfer in the help centre. Both cannot be right, and the difference is not small.
The encryption question
This is the part worth reading twice.
Smash's marketing describes its approach as the only one offering end-to-end encryption. Smash's own technical documentation describes files as encrypted in transit and at rest using the AES standard at 256 bits, and its comparison page describes encryption via HSM. A hardware security module is a very good way to protect keys that the provider holds. It is, by definition, the provider holding the keys.
Those two statements are not compatible. In-transit and at-rest encryption with HSM-managed keys is a solid, ordinary security posture, and it is not end-to-end encryption. We are pointing this out not to score a point but because the phrase has become decorative across this whole category, which is exactly why the definition is worth holding onto: end to end means the provider cannot decrypt your files, even if it wants to, even if it is compelled to.
Here that is testable rather than promised. The key is generated in your browser, the sealed bytes go up, and the key travels to your recipient in the link fragment, which browsers never put on the wire. It is also why we cannot help you if you lose it.
What it costs
Smash Pro is $10 a month billed monthly, $72 a year, or $115.20 for two years, which is where the "from $4.80" headline comes from. That includes 1 TB of storage and 30-day links.
Ours is $10 a month or $100 a year, with 1 TB of storage, 10 GB per transfer and links that can be set never to expire.
Which one to use
Use Smash when the file is enormous, the budget is zero, and nobody is waiting. Use this when the file is sensitive, or when you want the encryption claim on the page to mean the thing the words mean.
