Enclosed 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?
FeatureEnclosedSeaweedFS
CategoryFile Sync & StorageFile Sync & Storage
LicenseApache-2.0Apache-2.0
LanguageTypeScriptGo
Setup difficultyMediumHard
Min. RAM512 MB512 MB
Deploymentdockerdocker, kubernetes, binary
GitHub stars★ 2,046★ 33,952
First released20252015
ReplacesAmazon S3

Why pick each one

Choose Enclosed if…

  • Released under the Apache-2.0 license
  • First-class Docker support for quick deployment
  • Active community (2k GitHub stars)
  • Written in TypeScript
Enclosed 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 Enclosed or SeaweedFS better?

Neither is universally better. SeaweedFS has the larger community, while Enclosed is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.

Are Enclosed and SeaweedFS free and open-source?

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

Can I run Enclosed and SeaweedFS with Docker?

Enclosed: yes. SeaweedFS: yes.

Related comparisons