SHSelfHostIndex

copyparty vs Kubo (IPFS)

A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted file sync & storage options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.

Not the right match-up?
copyparty Portable file server with accelerated resumable uploads VS KU Kubo (IPFS) Reference implementation of the InterPlanetary File System
FeaturecopypartyKubo (IPFS)
Deploy effortUnder-an-hour setupUnder-an-hour setup
Health score100 · Excellent95 · Excellent
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITMIT
LanguagePythonGo
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM64 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, binary, snap
GitHub stars★ 46,774★ 17,139
First released20192015
ReplacesDropbox, Google DriveDropbox

What are copyparty and Kubo (IPFS)?

copyparty

copyparty is a portable file server with features including resumable uploads, deduplication, WebDAV, FTP, and media indexing. It runs from a single Python file with no dependencies.

  • Accelerated resumable uploads
  • WebDAV, FTP, and TFTP support
  • Single-file Python deployment

Read the full copyparty guide →

Kubo (IPFS)

Kubo is the reference implementation of IPFS, a peer-to-peer hypermedia protocol for decentralized file storage and sharing. It enables content-addressed distribution of files across a global network.

  • Content-addressed storage
  • Decentralized peer-to-peer network
  • HTTP gateway support

Read the full Kubo (IPFS) guide →

copyparty vs Kubo (IPFS): key differences

Copyparty is written in Python, while Kubo (IPFS) is built with Go. Copyparty is the lighter option, starting around 64 MB of RAM against 512 MB for Kubo (IPFS). Kubo (IPFS) is the more established project (first released 2015), while copyparty arrived in 2019. Copyparty has the considerably larger community, at 46,774 GitHub stars versus 17,139.

Why pick each one

Choose copyparty if…

  • Single-file deployment
  • Fast resumable uploads
  • WebDAV and FTP built in

Watch out for

  • Unconventional interface
  • Many flags to learn
copyparty details

Choose Kubo (IPFS) if…

  • Content-addressed storage
  • Censorship resistant
  • Reference IPFS implementation

Watch out for

  • Heavy bandwidth chatter
  • Content vanishes without pinning
  • Concepts take learning
Kubo (IPFS) details

Frequently asked questions

Is copyparty or Kubo (IPFS) better?

copyparty is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Kubo (IPFS) if its specific feature set fits your needs better.

Are copyparty and Kubo (IPFS) free and open-source?

Yes. copyparty is licensed under MIT and Kubo (IPFS) under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run copyparty and Kubo (IPFS) with Docker?

copyparty: yes. Kubo (IPFS): yes.

Which is lighter on resources, copyparty or Kubo (IPFS)?

copyparty has the smaller minimum footprint at 64 MB of RAM, compared to about 512 MB for Kubo (IPFS). Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.

Related comparisons