croc 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?
FeaturecrocKubo (IPFS)
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseMITMIT
LanguageGoGo
Setup difficultyEasyHard
Min. RAM32 MB512 MB
Deploymentbinarydocker, binary, snap
GitHub stars★ 39,485★ 17,093
First released20182015
ReplacesWeTransfer, AirDropDropbox

Why pick each one

Choose croc if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
  • Mature project with 39.5k GitHub stars
  • Written in Go
croc details

Choose Kubo (IPFS) if…

  • Released under the MIT license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Mature project with 17.1k GitHub stars
  • Written in Go
Kubo (IPFS) details

Frequently asked questions

Is croc or Kubo (IPFS) better?

croc 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 croc and Kubo (IPFS) free and open-source?

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

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

croc: check the project docs for container support. Kubo (IPFS): yes.

Related comparisons