Alternatives & comparisons

Smash vs WeTransfer: which free tier suits you?

By Hein de Wilde·Updated ·3 min read

Key takeaways

  • WeTransfer’s free plan counts 3 GB or 10 transfers across a rolling 30 days; Smash sends 2 GB with priority and queues the rest.
  • Many small sends suit Smash; familiarity is WeTransfer’s real advantage.
  • Both expire links and neither lists client proofing, which matters for work clients return to.
Contents
  1. The short comparison
  2. How the free tiers really differ
  3. Where both stop
  4. A third option, briefly
  5. When each is the better choice
  6. The short version

Smash and WeTransfer do the same basic job — upload a file, send a link — and differ mainly in how their free tiers limit you. According to each company's own pages, WeTransfer's free plan allows 3 GB or 10 transfers per 30 days, counted across the month, while Smash's free plan sends 2 GB with priority and queues anything larger instead of refusing it. If you send big files occasionally, Smash's queue is kinder; if you send small files often, WeTransfer's monthly count is the thing to watch.

I run Yungle, a third option, so I am not a neutral referee. Every competitor fact here comes from that company's own documentation, dated, and I say where each is the better choice.

The short comparison

WeTransferSmash
Free limit3 GB or 10 transfers per 30 days2 GB with priority, larger files queued
How long files lastIndefinitely on the top tier only7 days; up to 30 days on paid plans
Your own domainNoSubdomain on paid plans; own domain on Enterprise
Ads on the free tierAd-supportedNot stated on the page checked

WeTransfer facts checked 31 July 2026 (the free limit re-checked 21 September 2026); Smash facts checked 21 September 2026. No prices — they change faster than anyone can keep up with.

How the free tiers really differ

WeTransfer counts across the month. Its free plan is a rolling 30-day allowance: 3 GB or 10 transfers. The practical effect is that a busy week can use up your month, and the eleventh transfer waits.

Smash queues instead of refusing. Above 2 GB on the free plan, Smash does not stop you; your transfer goes into a non-priority queue. For a single big file sent now and then, that is a genuinely friendly design.

Which is better depends on your pattern: many small sends favour Smash; a few big sends a month favour either, depending on how long you can wait.

Where both stop

Both are transfer services: a link that works for a while, then ends. That is right for a one-off hand-over. It is the wrong shape for work a client returns to — a gallery, a project archive, a set of brand assets — because the link you sent in March is dead by June, and someone has to find and resend everything.

Neither lists client proofing on the pages checked: a place where the client favourites and comments on individual files. And neither offers a developer API, CLI or MCP server on the pages checked, which matters if sending is a step in an automated pipeline.

A link that expires on its own schedule, next to one that lasts until you decide otherwise.

A third option, briefly

Since you are comparing: Yungle sends up to 10 GB per transfer free, as many transfers as you like, no account and no ads, on servers in Germany. On a subscription, nothing expires unless you give it a date, and collections give clients one place to come back to, with favourites and comments.

When each is the better choice

WeTransfer, if your recipients already know its download page and you would rather not introduce anything new — familiarity is a real feature.

Smash, if you send a large file now and then on a free account and can wait for the queue.

Neither, if files need to stay reachable for months, or if you want to see who downloaded what — that is where a service built for collections and receipts earns its place.

The short version

  • WeTransfer free: 3 GB or 10 transfers per rolling 30 days.
  • Smash free: 2 GB with priority, bigger files queued.
  • Both expire links; neither lists client proofing.
  • Pick by your sending pattern, and by whether files need to last.

Full sourced detail is on Yungle vs WeTransfer and Yungle vs Smash. For the whole field, see the best WeTransfer alternatives.

Hein de Wilde

I build and run Yungle, and I write everything here. Comparisons name competitors and credit them, every claim about another company comes from that company’s own documentation, and where we fall short it says so. More about who is behind this.

Read next