Yeah, Cryptomator does sound like a good option. But I personally found the comment from the developer at the bottom to be a bit off-putting. I don't like when people needlessly trash-talk other options.

If you value privacy higher than availability and integrity, this certainly is a point for CryFS. With Cryptomator, we strive for the best of all three primary security targets [...] [...] I personally dislike snakeoil statements on their website like “the security of CryFS has been proven”. While I don’t see a problem with the cryptography, I prefer to keep some distance from phrases used by all those “military grade security” bogus companies.

He seems to belittle the importance of a key advantage of CryFS, and then goes on to accuse them of being 'snakeoil statements' because CryFS said their security was 'proven' in a masters thesis. I'm sure that 'proven' is not a great choice of word here, but I don't think CryFS was trying to trick anyone. They're just saying that the tool has been thoroughly analysed in a masters thesis and found to be secure.

One of the 'advantages' being touted for Cryptomator is that it is more 'stable' than CryFS. But the claim of stability coimes from CryFS saying their software is in beta while Cryptomator says theirs is complete. The way I see it, that's not really a measure of stability; it's a measure of caution from the developers. Stability and reliability are not things you can just claim, or base on whether or not something is called 'beta'. It's about testing, and analysing. So, in that context of CryFS expressing caution, to say their masters thesis statement is a 'snake oil statement', I think is disingenuous.

(Note: I've given an in-depth explanation of something that really isn't a big deal. What the developer said is not that bad. I just wanted to articulate why I found it off putting.)