macOS · Duplicates
Same photo, four names.
Your Mac sees four files.
A card imported twice. An attachment saved again because that was easier than finding it. A Downloads folder holding the same PDF three times under three names. macOS has no opinion about any of this and Finder will not tell you — because deciding that two files are the same means reading both of them.
Free to try, no account required.
Why duplicate finders lose files
Name and size matching is a guess
Two photos from the same camera can share a byte count exactly. Two drafts of a document can share a name. Matching on metadata is fast because it never opens the file, and wrong for exactly the same reason.
Something has to choose which copy survives
With four hundred groups you are not deciding each one by hand. If a tool will not tell you its rule, its rule is whatever it happened to scan first — a coin toss you are not present for.
iCloud makes it worse before it makes it better
Optimised storage leaves placeholders on disk where files used to be. A scanner that reads them in order to compare them downloads your entire library to do it, over your connection, and leaves it all sitting locally afterwards.
The real test is what happens after a bad run
All of these tools work when they are right. The question is what you do when one has removed four hundred files it should not have — and "restore them from the Trash one at a time, working out where each belonged" is not an answer.
How VaultSort finds them
Verified byte for byte
Files are grouped by size, then by a hash of their first 64 KB, and only survivors of both get a full-content hash. Nothing is ever called a duplicate on the strength of its name — the fast tiers exist to avoid reading files that cannot possibly match, not to avoid checking the ones that might.
Nothing is deleted by default
The default action moves duplicates into a folder you nominate, so the result is a pile you can look through, restore from, or bin yourself. Secure deletion is available as a deliberate second choice.
A keep rule you can predict
The copy that survives is the oldest by modification time, with ties broken by the shortest path and then alphabetically. Deterministic, so two runs over the same folder never disagree about which file was the original.
iCloud placeholders are skipped, not downloaded
Dataless files are left alone and counted rather than read, so scanning a library on optimised storage does not quietly pull it all back down. The count is reported, so you know they were there.
Similar images, kept as a separate question
An optional perceptual mode finds the same photo saved at a different size, format or quality — a 64-bit difference hash with its own threshold. It is a different claim from "identical" and is presented as one, rather than folded into a single number.
Organize first, deduplicate second
Sorting a folder by type before hunting duplicates makes the results far easier to judge — forty PDFs rather than four hundred mixed files — and organizing is fully reversible, so the sequence stays safe.
What it does not do yet
- — There is no acoustic matching for audio. Two exports of the same track at different bitrates are genuinely different files and will not be paired. Byte-identical copies of a sample will be, however they have been renamed.
- — The scanner skips filesystem bookkeeping — .Spotlight-V100, .Trashes, .DocumentRevisions-V100 and the Windows equivalents — but carries no exclusion list for ~/Library, package caches or node_modules. Point it at Downloads or one project folder rather than at your whole home directory.
- — Symbolic links are never followed, so a duplicate reachable only through a link outside the folder you scanned will not appear.
- — Network volumes are scanned, but more slowly and less reliably than local storage. Start it and leave it rather than watching it.
VaultSort against the alternatives
| Feature | VaultSort | Gemini 2 | dupeGuru |
|---|---|---|---|
| Matches by file content | Yes — full BLAKE3 | Yes | Yes |
| Similar-image detection | Yes — optional | Yes | Yes |
| Acoustic audio matching | No | No | Music mode |
| States which copy it keeps | Oldest, then shortest path | Selection rules | Reference folders |
| Moves rather than deletes by default | Yes | Trash | Trash |
| Secure deletion of the copies | Yes | No | No |
| Storage breakdown and large files | Yes | No | No |
| Reversible folder organizing | Yes | No | No |
| Encryption and disk erase | Yes | No | No |
| Price | One-time | One-time or Setapp | Free, open source |
Competitor details checked August 2026. They change their products as we change ours — tell us if something here is out of date and we will correct it.
Questions people ask
Does it match renamed copies?
Yes. Matching is on content, so a file renamed, moved, or saved with a different extension is still recognised. The name is never part of the comparison.
Can it find photos that are the same but not identical?
Yes, through the optional similar-image mode — the same picture at a different resolution or compression level. It is deliberately opt-in and kept separate from exact matching, because "looks the same" and "is the same" are different claims and should not share a checkbox.
Is it safe to run on my Photos library?
Scan a copy of your originals rather than the library package itself, and let Photos handle duplicates inside it — recent versions find them on their own. A duplicate finder operating on that package’s internal structure is a way to break a database, not to tidy one.
How fast is it on a large folder?
Most files are never opened. Anything with a unique size is eliminated without being read, and everything else is settled by its first 64 KB unless that also collides. The full hash — the expensive part — runs only on genuine candidates.
What if I change my mind after moving duplicates?
They are in the folder you chose, with their names intact. Nothing was deleted, so putting them back is a file operation rather than a recovery job.
Try it on your own files
One purchase, no subscription. $24.99 once, and every feature is included.