Forklift vs Marta: polished commercial vs keyboard purist on macOS

Forklift and Marta are both dual-pane file managers on macOS, but they target different brains. Forklift is for the polished-commercial-app appreciator; Marta is for the keyboard-vim purist. This is the head-to-head.

TL;DR

• Forklift if you want polished native Mac feel, excellent SFTP/sync, willing to pay $19.95.
• Marta if you want vim/Total-Commander muscle memory, JS scripting, and don't need polished SFTP.
• Pick one — both is overkill.

Side-by-side

Where Forklift wins

Polished native Mac feel

Forklift looks and behaves like the native macOS app it is. Density matches macOS conventions, sidebar treatment matches Finder, transitions are subtle, Reduce Motion respected.

Marta is functional but feels like a port — denser than macOS conventions, vim-influenced UI patterns, slightly off-Mac.

Industry-leading SFTP

Forklift's remote engine is the best on Mac. Connection management, transfer queue, error recovery, multiple protocols (SFTP, FTP, S3, B2, WebDAV, Cloud).

Marta has FTP/SFTP but it's basic. For SFTP-heavy users, Forklift is materially better.

Folder-pair sync engine

Forklift's sync (one-way / two-way / archive) is well-tested. Marta has no equivalent.

For backup or staging-mirror workflows, Forklift wins decisively.

Better preview

Forklift's preview pane handles images, video, audio, PDF, archives. Marta's preview is text-focused.

Mouse-friendly + keyboard-strong

Forklift is great with the keyboard but doesn't punish you for using the mouse. Right-click menus, drag-drop, click-to-select all work well.

Marta's vim-philosophy means many features are keyboard-only. If you instinctively reach for the mouse, Marta is slower.

Where Marta wins

Vim / Total Commander muscle memory

If you came from vim or Total Commander, Marta's keyboard model fits. : for command mode, hjkl-style navigation possible, key chords.

Forklift uses macOS conventions; ex-vim users adapt but it's not as natural.

JS scripting

Marta exposes a JavaScript scripting API for custom commands, integrations, custom commands bound to keys. You can write a "send these files to my custom build pipeline" plugin in 50 lines of JS.

Forklift has no scripting. If extensibility matters, Marta is the only option here.

Per-pane tabs

Marta has tabs per pane (each pane has its own tab strip). Forklift has tabs per window (tabs apply to the whole window, not a specific pane).

For workflows with many simultaneous folder contexts, Marta's per-pane tabs are slightly more flexible.

Free tier usable

Marta is free for the core feature set. Forklift has no free tier.

If you're not sure you need a paid file manager, Marta is the no-risk way to find out.

Smaller surface area

Marta has fewer features than Forklift, by design. For users who want a tighter tool, this is a feature.

Where they're tied

• Both serious dual-pane.
• Both Mac-only.
• Both stable, mature, with engaged communities.

Use case routing

What about quad-pane?

Neither does quad-pane. Both cap at 2.

For 4 panes on macOS, mq-dir (free, MIT, open source). Many users run Forklift for SFTP and mq-dir for quad-pane local work — different shapes for different jobs.

Verdict

If you're polish-and-capability oriented: Forklift. The $19.95 is reasonable and the Mac-native feel + SFTP combo is hard to beat.

If you're keyboard-vim-scripting oriented: Marta. The free tier covers most needs and Pro at $25 is reasonable for plugins and themes.

If you want both polish AND quad-pane: Forklift + mq-dir (mq-dir is free).

If you want vim-purity AND quad-pane: rare combo. Marta + mq-dir if you accept mq-dir's macOS-conventional shortcuts. Otherwise Marta + cmux + nnn/Yazi for terminal-side parallelism.

mq-dir is MIT, free, no telemetry — worth checking either way.