copyparty vs SeaweedFS

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?
FeaturecopypartySeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITApache-2.0
LanguagePythonGo
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM64 MB512 MB
Deploymentdocker, binarydocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 46,121★ 33,952
First released20192015
ReplacesDropbox, Google DriveAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose copyparty if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 46.1k GitHub stars
copyparty details

Choose SeaweedFS if…

  • Released under the Apache-2.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Kubernetes-ready with Helm charts available
  • Mature project with 34k GitHub stars
SeaweedFS details

Frequently asked questions

Is copyparty or SeaweedFS better?

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

Are copyparty and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

Yes. copyparty is licensed under MIT and SeaweedFS under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.

Can I run copyparty and SeaweedFS with Docker?

copyparty: yes. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons